Resolves to the number of markets created by me that @MattP comments had "dishonorable resolution" in 2022.
Note that the term has been used broadly to encompass many things like honest mistakes, misleading question titles, and somewhat ambiguous resolutions. See examples of discussion about this at https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-a-delegation-of-us-senators-vi#bec1sWxSzajNVO5drKKS and https://manifold.markets/jack/will-donald-trump-be-us-president-o#aGjPCxUrX6Pg0dSsXnc0
In the event @MattP changes his mind about whether a resolution was dishonorable, his final decision will be what is counted here.
Of course, this market is created by me so you have to trust me to resolve this accurately. If you think I'm unlikely to intentionally misresolve a market in a blatantly wrong way (which I claim is an accurate belief), then you could think of this as a market on the likelihood of me resolving any question in a slightly dishonorable way.
Note: bounds are set to [-1, 2] with initial probability at the midpoint, so that there is reasonable liquidity around 0 which is the most likely outcome. Obviously a negative answer is not possible.
Aug 27, 10:39am: I will not trade in this market other than a starting bet to move the initial probability to 0.001.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ100 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1 | |
| 4 | Ṁ0 |
I seem to have completely forgotten about this clause "I will not trade in this market other than a starting bet to move the initial probability to 0.001." Guess I'll sell my shares. I remember MartinRandall complaining about this happening to him too lol. I guess in the future I will not bother with author-trading-policies until Manifold provides a feature that supports it.
I don't really see much point to the clause now, I guess it was to reassure traders I wouldn't intentionally misresolve a market to make a profit here. So let me instead just say that I won't do that. :)
@jack I have accidentally violated that clause in my own markets by adding liquidity and then subsequently withdrawing it thereby converting a portion into shares.
@BTE Yep, that is another problem with it. I wouldn't really consider that trading though, if the intent was just to subsidize for a limited duration.
I typoed a market resolution here: https://manifold.markets/jack/new-york-home-price-index-for-june. It's clearly an incorrect resolution and meets my criteria for inclusion in https://manifold.markets/jack/what-markets-will-i-consider-to-hav#answer-12.
I'm sure nobody would have noticed if I didn't call attention to it, as I was the only person who ever bet in that market :)
@IsaacKing Would be an improvement sure, but I'm not sure how big of one. Being able to see information on payouts mismatching expectations would be very helpful I think. (This could be part of the confirmation perhaps, or if you can undo then this happens very naturally)
@jack They used to have that actually, but they removed it. I'm not sure why; I think you're right that it would help prevent misclicks.
We were talking about another similar case where it was an honest incorrect resolution but nobody other than the author had traded: https://manifold.markets/Yev/will-sirsalty-or-a-bot-be-1-on-the.
@MattP said he was leaning towards incorrect but not dishonorable, because hard to say it was dishonorable if no one was harmed.
@jack yeah, after some more thought I'm solidifying behind that position. I'd earlier rescinded my "dishonorable" judgment on one of BTE's markets after he recompensed the traders who were hurt by the incorrect resolution, so in the case of a market where no one was hurt I think the consistent position is to say it was incorrect but not "dishonorable".
I also created a group for improper/dishonorable resolutions here: https://manifold.markets/group/improperly-resolved
Haven’t seen any dishonorable or even rugpulls (though there was one about the Infl. Prot. Act. that came pretty close to a pure rug.)
People probably sometimes click quickly when it benefits their position or govern by their interpretation rather than language. Not even dishonorable just human nature.
Notice the absurdity of this Kalshi market:
https://kalshi.com/events/SDEBT/markets/SDEBT-23JAN01
“technically” an executive order is some tedious process but in reality it should have always been written as “executive action” under any basic understanding; imagine attaching pages of fine print and somehow getting that wrong (worse than anything that’s happened here)
though there was one about the Infl. Prot. Act. that came pretty close to a pure rug
What are you referring to here? I can't think of anything like that.
@NcyRocks oh yeah I was also thinking of that market, thought Gigacasting meant my markets but I guess it was about all markets on manifold.
There was a tag for improper resolution which had quite a few markets, but it's gone now that tags were removed unfortunately. I asked if it could be restored into a group.
Btw here's an example of an old black-and-white rugpull by Adam: https://manifold.markets/Adam/will-this-market-have-m10000-invest-c5cfee65e218
@BTE For the purposes of a similar market focused on your markets, I'd consider myself to have more or less changed my mind on the US Senators market since you returned the stakes of the folks who lost money and it was clearly an honest mistake - I guess if we want to be fancy about it maybe I consider it 1/3 of a dishonorable resolution rather than 1. Up to you if you want to use that level of granularity though - I would personally just use a binary if it were me, in which case that market would be "honorable" by my lights.
@jack Oh sure, I meant more in a general sense of counting any given market resolution as binarily honorable or no, not the market type necessarily.