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.
1,000
3.00Marketz close early all the time
Yes for markets in general, but not for markets specifically about trading activity on the market itself, which is what I was talking about - ones like "Will this market have >100k total bet on it by 10/31?" and "Will this market be at >50% at close?" - clearly manipulating the close date is an easy way for the author to trick others out of a lot of mana, and it is understood that that is typically not the author's intent.
whether they should be wary of potential misresolutions in the future.
See e.g. https://manifold.markets/Spindle/this-market-will-wiggle-a-lot#pUEQuN8JSsmTUMhKKK4n
@Spindle I clozed that one cuz it wasn't possible for there to be a TRANCHE INJECTIOn on that date. There can't be TRAUNCHE when s marker iz closed
Actually, that's not even the key issue. The key issue is that normally if someone asks a question like "Will this market have >100k total bet on it by 10/31" it is implicit that the market remains open for the duration. Authors could abuse it just closing the market whenever they feel like to force a NO resolution, but that would be considered a trick. Spindle could also have closed down the market and waited to resolve no on 10/31, and that would have also violated the traders' reasonable expectations.
Also, this is not an attack on Spindle, I'm just trying to decide how to resolve this meta-market. I think it was a fun trick market, and the fact that Spindle creates trick markets is something traders can take into account when looking at future markets. As has been said before, deciding whether a market was improperly resolved is not necessarily a statement about whether it was morally bad, just a statement about what traders should have expected and whether they should be wary of potential misresolutions in the future.
@NcyRocks Right. It's important whether the author correctly followed the market's resolution procedure, not just whether the result ended up being correct. Added a note on that to the market description.
There's some debate over this one. Spindle resolved it early, which ensured that the answer would be NO. However, the answer only became a certain NO because Spindle resolved NO - it's not true that the answer was determined, and then Spindle resolved it. So currently I consider it improper or dubious at least.
Also, more important than the technicalities is the motivating question of whether it's what a reasonable bettor would have expected. I think no.
@MattP Yep, thanks for adding it, that definitely counts as incorrect resolution as per Austin's comment https://manifold.markets/Austin/what-contributions-will-we-list-on#Df3a0jEtLDQ9qEJKQO1Y
I was a bit worried about this one for a while given that profits and bets were made private, but I think it ended up being fine. Even if it had resolved N/A I think I would still have rated it pretty low on the "improper resolution" scale. Just thought it was worth adding here as an interesting case study.