🏅 Top traders

This is a bad look

This sucks.

A YES resolution without the creator saying they were considering resolving N/A or NO would have been fine.

I didn't exit my NO position and cut my losses, and even bought some more NO, because of the creator's comments indicating they were tossing up between NO and N/A. By making these comments and then resolving contrary to them, the creator defrauded me to the extent I could have attempted to minimise my losses.

The creator admitted to this fraud and has been fined.

Yet their resolution is allowed to stand ostensibly because it would deny YES betters their profits if it were N/A'd (they wouldn't make any losses though).

But the creator defrauded NO betters as well, and they must wear those losses.

Call me biased, but I think that was the wrong call. The below-linked market also shows that it was unexpected.

@chrisjbillington (to be fair im only reading the guidelines now, (oops), I didn't realize raw ambiguityposting was super against TOS, feels bad man, i would support a retrospective N/A)

https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-the-market-on-irisigbs-twitter

Will the market on @Iris_IGB's twitter followers be re-resolved by admins?

59% chance. Resolves YES if the market is re-resolved by a Manifold admin within one week, otherwise resolves NO. https://manifold.markets/LukeMcredmond/will-irisigb-cross-25k-twitterx-fol [link preview]

You’ve done well 🫡

@inerati i regret everything

😋

@LukeMcredmond integrity 1) won i guess @DavidChee maybe update the guidelines

@LukeMcredmond okay... but u really shouldn't have bought a ton of yes shares right before resolving it. This actually does begin to border on a creator resolving a market just for their own gain which is against our guidelines and may actually now make me have to N/A it.

@DavidChee Now it's plausible u just resolved to YES because it gave u the best price for the best profit... and would have resolved NO if the probability was flipped

@DavidChee my original comment, integrity 1)

I was always going to resolve as stated in the description. (Shenanigans are a part of reality)

@LukeMcredmond You very much made the comment section believe you were tossing up between NO and N/A

@DavidChee He resolved it in the only acceptable way. The whole discussion here was pointless. The resolution criterion was absolutely unambiguous, there was no base for an N/A.

A bot manipulation is unpleasant, but always a possibility for a question like this. It is part of the prediction.

I understand that people who didn't anticipate it and bet NO are unhappy now, but in the end they were simply wrong with their prediction.

@LukeMcredmond Oh I'm very fine with you resolving it as YES. I'm not sure why you misinterpreted my comment that it should only be resolved N/A or NO and that you alluded you were considering a toss-up between those two. I was personally thinking it should be YES but maybe N/A at around a 60-40 btwn the two.

It's the fact you strung people along, didn't clarify criteria, and then rebought into the market with your entire balance for maximum profit.

This seems quite clearly taken advantage of ambiguity for your own personal gain.

@DavidChee

@LukeMcredmond absolutely there was a philosophical foray into No an Na, i think I presented considered and heartfelt opinions for all povs😌

But the market was not resolved YES in order to maximise profit, the Market resolved YES because there are 26.1 Followers.

@LukeMcredmond but yes absolutely there was, "gamesmanship" ( im an asshole i know haha)

But it was always going to be a "if its over 25k, YES" on my end, exploitable markets are apart of the game, unfortunately i chose a particularly exploitable criteria.

(Had there been a more subtle bot effort for example, i wouldn't have been able to detect it, etc)

I left the market open, untill today specifically to follow through with the criteria of the description,

No or NA would have be an immediate action, were i to do them.

But ultimately its your call, ofc, to reverse and i accept your judgement with grace❤️

@DavidChee I believe the market should be resolved N/A if only to set a precedent that markets must not abuse ambiguity. My CoI is that I lost M6, but truly I do not care about M6. However, I did bet yes significantly before any manipulation happened, and only reversed my bet when it was revealed that the followers were fake.

@LukeMcredmond You realise that you are admitting to breaking our community guidelines which explicitly state that creators shouldn't take advantage of their position as a creator when it comes to ambiguity: https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Community-Guideline-f6c77b1af41749828df7dae5e8735400

Anyway, I'm going to leave the resolution as YES as I agree it was the correct one. And people trading after the manipulation occurred knew they were trading on creator manipulation/guidelines/etc and not the question. Although I have sympathy towards NO shareholders, botting is something they should have considered and asked for clarification on, but they didn't. It wasn't against our TOS during the market.

But, I am going to mark this question as non-predictive making it not count towards leagues. And am going to fine you M$2000 for breaking the guidelines. This amount reflects my time you have wasted, the profit you made at the expense of others, and claws some of the unique trader bonuses given to you by Manifold.

I will also be updating the community guidelines to prevent markets from incentivising breaking other websites TOS going forward - although there is some nuance to this because we still want to allow certain markets that actually do provide value eg. "will data from a website be hacked and leaked?"

@iczero I don't think setting precedents are that important when I can just update the rules/guidelines to explicitly ban the behaviour going forward.

I think it's more important to honour the question and what the resolution criteria is (which wasn't against TOS at the time).

@DavidChee...so i may i never waste a second more.. 😇

ggs

@DavidChee aight then i'm done here. catch me in polymarket, where results are actually matter https://polymarket.com/profile/0x033Dc6e3E3e0a3ae55402576990392aE910AAF05

Polymarket - Profile - 0x033dc6e3e3e0a3ae55402576990392ae...

Check out this profile on Polymarket.

@WeirdMonkey dramatic

@WeirdMonkey You are free to see yourself out the front door. Or the back door. I don't exactly care

@LukeMcredmond

@WeirdMonkey Sorry! I do feel bad for NO holders, but I believe this is the correct decision based on our TOS at the time. This used to happen far more often, but it now happens very rarely thanks to slowly improving TOS over time and removing these weird situations.

If N/A'ing didn't punish YES users who correctly predicted the botting, I would have been more inclined to resolve to N/A. If you are truly quitting thank you for the time you spent on our site.

If N/A'ing didn't punish YES users who correctly predicted the botting

What this openly does here is encouraging users to predict (and ... exploit?) future holes in your tos. that's not ideal! I don't think this is a hypothetical either, based on my experience with sites with similarly clever users

@DavidChee I don't exactly agree that N/A is a punishment. By that logic, you could consider leaving the resolution as is to be a punishment against those who bet no due to intentional ambiguity. Whether users profited or not due to then ambiguity, it is my opinion that it should be rolled back.

@DavidChee bro no one was predicting botting

@DavidChee Not that my opinion matters, but I think you should have insisted on NA here. The whole thing was tainted by the market creator explicitly - and now confessed - inserting ambiguity over resolution criteria in comments which is against community guidelines and for good reason. That alone should be enough to NA it.

The market was not predicting whether Iris would get enough followers: it was predicting what the OP would resolve given it was hacked and was talking about choosing between NO and NA.

@DavidChee do you see the comment below where the OP explicitly stated that he exited the market?