🏅 Top traders

Ok, this bug discussion is kinda pointless. As previously discussed Levi broke the guidelines and I'm going to comment to counteract his manipulation.

@DavidChee I bought my no shares to cancel out profit

@DavidChee I don't agree I broke the guidelines, but I realize such matters come down to subjective opinion. Anyways I'm glad all this is over! 👼

He's the guy who owns the guidelines, and he's changing them lol!

I think the original market is kinda fun although arguably misleading, the elawyer turn at the end about blocking not working was a bit more annoying

@LEVI_BOT_1 well, either way, thanks for not being too unreasonable about it all haha. And once again, if there is something I can add to the guidelines that you think would increase their clarity please let me know.

If a bug increases someone's mana, those mana will be removed, and thus discounted.

Let's have this discussion when

1. You prove that they were blocked and bypassed your block.

2. Admins confirm that there was a bug, and remove any comments posted due to a bug.

If a bug increases someone's mana, and the admins decides the person can keep the mana, can he not bet with those mana on WvM? Why should those points be discounted?

The bug — if there were any, if you did block them, and if block is to work like you intended, that is a lot of ifs — similarly gives one the ability to comment, or reinforces or reassures, for it is by default. If the admins do not retroactively deny the ability and remove the comments, comments made with such ability should not be discounted.

Consistency check:

If a user asks, 'Will I be able to create 100 new markets in the 1-minute period before close?', thinking that he can do it with a programme he just coded, but a database crash prevented him from being able to do so. Should it resolve YES because the bug should be excluded?

Will I be able to create 100 new markets in 1 minute? Will any one person be able to comment thrice? What is the difference? Where is any consistency? Can you look for a second at what you are writing before hitting the send button?

And for Christ's sake, stop blocking me so I can fricking follow you for the 105 market.

@Non_nobis Well suggest proof that would satisfy you and I try to get a hold of it, I already showed a screenshot of me having blocked fedor while he commented and offered to screenshare also but nobody took me up on the offer.

"Will I be able to create 100 new markets in 1 minute? Will any one person be able to comment thrice? What is the difference? Where is any consistency?"

In the case of the server crash I think, in whatever sense that is a bug, doesn't matter and we should resolves it to NO. We have to draw the line somewhere as with all things, which is just part of the standard process of conceptual analysis.

I think in the case of WvM people would not have accepted Isaac accidentally using a bug to get more shares to influence resolution, and similarly here we should not accept comments made by accidentally using a bug to influence resolution.

If you're interested I went through a few examples of this with Jack in the thread on this in the manifold discord. Please read those before trying more intuition pumps so I don't have to reexplain stuff. https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1107275410980491264

I think in the case of WvM people would not have accepted Isaac accidentally using a bug to get more shares to influence resolution

But they are accepting it here, and we can find other markets where the fact that there was a bug doesn’t invalidate the event leading to the resolution (the most obvious example is a market about a bug on manifold).

So your analogy isn’t enough here, and the question come down to "why would they not accept it for WvM ?", the reason could well apply to WvM without applying to this particular market.

It seems that SirSalty is now cashing out after pumping the market with his threat of using Admin powers. I wonder if he will now comment again one last time claiming he has nothing to gain mana-wise since he doesn't hold any mana. I for one would find that highly problematic (both the pump and dump and the market manipulation).

The only cleanly way to proceed is to not dirty your hands again by Admin powered pump and dumping or Admin powered market manipulation.

@LEVI_BOT_1 before you resolve the market, tell me and I'll buy the shares opposite the resolution to counteract my profit.

I didnt want to have an active position in the market so it's clear it doesnt have an affect on any decisions.

Yes, they are.

4 people clearly satisfied the resolution criterion, I think this should resolved as YES.

In some sense, the question written in the market description is a meta-question about whether or not blocking people after they post their second comment would prevent them from posting their third comment (on Manifold in it's current state, bugs and all). As we can clearly see, the answer to this meta-question is no.

@MayMeta comparing "should a WvM-like market resolve YES if it's creator used bugs" with "should this resolve to YES even tho people used bugs" is not correct, because the nature of those two self-resolving market is absolutely different. WvM was about real users and their funds, this market is about the Manifold platform functionality. So bugs in the WvM market would not be fair game, but in this market they are, because they're a part of the manifold platform.

@MayMeta the only reason left for this to resolve NO is for you to save your own mana, even though fundamentally you made a wrong prediction about the manifold platform. You were trying to trick people into thinking 'pff its so easy to post three comments' or 'I bet he won't block me' and betting YES, and then surprising them after they've made their second comment. But the manifold platform itself surprised you and third comments kept coming. I say it's karma.

Don't worry that much. You've only spent Ṁ1,235 on this market, and your Trading Profits graph already accounts for 75% of this loss. It's time to resolve this as YES.

@MayMeta "WvM was about real users and their funds, this market is about the Manifold platform functionality. So bugs in the WvM market would not be fair game, but in this market they are, because they're a part of the manifold platform."

I don't see what the fundamental difference is, they're both predictions about what people will do in the market: "will people hold so so many shares" and "will people post such and so comments". In both cases they require the use of manifold functionality, which can be exploited through bugs in both cases.

@LEVI_BOT_1 Isaac clearly signaled his intention to NOT count alts and bots, i.e. to restrict the silliness, bugs, and tomfoolery. Your question operates on the platform `as is`.

Yes, your market description states 'I may or may not block you, I'll see how I feel', but it's a statement about your planned actions, not about comment disqualification.

In the way the description was written, you're not able to disqualify any comments.

@MayMeta I don't think saying "we don't count alts" implies "if someone uses a bug to get extra YES shares those will be excluded", I think the reason he didn't specify this in his market resolution is that it's very obvious to hold in any market unless otherwise specified.

If I used a bug overwrite something manifold's servers to prevent people from commenting that would also not be allowed. The reason why what I'm doing is fine is that I'm strictly sticking to intended features.

@LEVI_BOT_1 Imagine an admin making a marking "will I be able to create 100 new markets in a span of 1 minute starting this midnight" and a bunch of people bet according to their beliefs about the admin's coding capability and the reliability of the Manifold servers to withstand a peak load. Then the clock strikes 00:01 and there are only 20 markets created. But the admin leaves a comment "Oh, but it doesn't count! The database crashed! The intended feature of manifold is to allow rapid market creation!"

See, it doesn't make any sense. Your market is fundamentally about the Manifold GUI. You believed it would work as intended, before testing it beforehand, and the platform proved you wrong.

@MayMeta If the market is specifically about whether there'll be a bug or not (either explicitly or very heavily implied) then that's fine. That's not true in this case nor in WvM.

@LEVI_BOT_1
An important difference, is that mana created by a bug is false mana, just like counterfeit dollars (it could be exactly like normal mana/dollars, but it doesn’t count because what matter is the origin, what it represents).
And so it would be deleted afterward in the case of WvM.
Comments are just comments, and the events of people posting comments just happened.

So I also think it should just resolve yes.

@dionisos Mana is also just mana, it's represented the same way on the computer, whether we personally label it some specific way with respect to some resolution criteria is up to us, and we can do the exact same thing for comments.

@LEVI_BOT_1 Mana is just mana, but if you increase the counter of mana with a bug, then it is not mana, because mana is a social construct, it is about what you get when you follow some rules (and the counter of mana is just a measure of it).
It isn’t the case for comments.

Also, markets about nothing, like this one, are bad, worse when they are just about trapping people with an unintuitive functionality of manifold markets (this is just not what blocking people should do), and still worse if, even when the trap miss, it is resolved in bad faith.

@dionisos "Mana is just mana, but if you increase the counter of mana with a bug, then it is not mana, because mana is a social construct, it is about what you get when you follow some rules (and the counter of mana is just a measure of it).
It isn’t the case for comments."

The "validity" of mana with respect to a market is a social construct in exactly the same way the "validity" of a comment with respect to a market is a social construct.

@LEVI_BOT_1
I would not call it "validity".

I tried to replace "mana" by "comments" in my argument, and it just makes no sense.
So I think there is an important difference, and the reason I just gave, works for mana, but not for comments.