this market is for prop bets on the Kennedy 'Address the Nation' event on August 23, 2p ET held in Phoenix, AZ.
general rules:
Add your own answers, but please be as clear and objective as possible. I'll likely n/a vibes-based responses or ask for clarity to make them more concrete where possible. I will also n/a responses that are too difficult to track or resolve, or ones that are too obvious (if they'll definitely resolve Yes or No). Feel free to comment below if you want me to add the option for you.
For swift resolution, add proof or timestamps in your comment. Reply as a comment on the option you want resolved to make resolution clearer.)
If for any reason the press conference in Asheboro, NC is canceled, this market will NA. If the time changes, the market remains.
For words/mentions, the following apply:
The exact word or sequence of words must be said without any differences, except for the following rules:
Plurals (e.g., "cat" and "cats") are considered equivalent.
Possessives, e.g. "Trump's" counts as an instance of "Trump" (but not vice versa)
Contractions count the same as the words they represent e.g., "don't" is equivalent to "do not"
Some examples of words which are not considered the same (not an exhaustive list!)
Abbreviations, e.g. USA is not the same as "United States of America"
Verb tenses, e.g. running vs ran are not the same
Other word forms like America and American are not the same
Parts of words, e.g. "Obamacare" does not count as an instance of "Obama"
Additional notes for clarity:
Any usage counts regardless of context.
Different meanings of a word, e.g. Apple the company or apple the fruit count as the same word
Different capitalizations e.g., "Apple" and "apple" are counted as the same word.
Different spellings of a word due to regional variations are counted as the same word (e.g., "color" and "colour," "organize" and "organise")
It's a verbal conversation so this shouldn't matter but just for clarity. E.g. in case someone spells the word out, the spelling wouldn't matter.
1,000
3.00editing to pin (this is related to the 'deal' option)
hm - this is about the Address, and I don't want to wait for responses from Trump if he's not there and part of the Address itself. I'd rather not extend the prop bets to other media and sources, or wait indefinitely to see if Trump responds. I want to keep it contained to RFK's event today.
I'll consider how to update the option to make it clear what he could say to qualify, but it will need to resolve based on his statement independent of Trump/the Trump team. The rest sounds like a separate market.
the market will remain open for submissions until shortly before the scheduled start time of the address. I will close it for trading when the speech ends so I can review any remaining options and resolve.
@mods please correctly re-resolve this back to NO, as was originally done. Every other market resolved as him indeed dropping out, including Manifold Politics markets:
@jim @shankypanky @PeterNjeim
I found this still lurking in the moderator queue. Although it looks like the creator has already handled it, I decided to give it another look since there are multiple people asking and I'd rather clear it from the queue. Please note that the creator specifically included language in the description that (IMO) gives her the ability to N/A any answer she doesn't like.
I tried to find a transcript of this speech. Here is the one I found via a web search:
https://im1776.com/2024/08/24/rfk-address-to-the-nation/
I searched for any lines about dropping out. Here is what I found:
I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and not ending it. My name will remain on the ballot in most states. If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping President Trump or Vice President Harris. In red states, the same will apply. I encourage you to vote for me. And if enough of you do vote for me, and neither of the major party candidates win 270 votes, which is quite possible, in fact, today our polling shows them tying at 269, I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contention election. But in about ten battleground states, where my presence would be a spoiler, I’m going to remove my name, and I’ve already started that process and urge voters not to vote for me.
I then searched and found multiple other sources confirming this was part of the speech.
The answer in question is very specific. He needs to specifically say announce he is not dropping out.
The first line of this quote includes: "I am not terminating my campaign". That seems to match quite well with what the answer was asking. If it was my market, I would have resolved this answer Yes without any hesitation at all. He specifically said exactly what the answer asked for. It doesn't really matter what else was said after that. As soon as he said that line, this answer could have resolved Yes.
Luckily for No holders, it looks like the answer entered murky territory when he mentioned dropping out of select areas. You should probably be happy you got most of your mana back with the N/A resolution.
@Eliza I disagree fully and vehemently at this decision. It has been argued extensively over many markets' comments sections that dropping out includes suspending a campaign, and is not synonymous with outright termination. I cited a whole swathe of major news sources saying RFK Jr. dropped out. You mention things happening after the speech, I assume because you believe RFK Jr. somehow dropped out after the speech and not during it. This is incorrect, the news sources are speaking about speech, and the responses to it. This is a clear dropping out of the race. As for the part where RFK Jr. talks about a potential chance of victory, this is not serious, it's an attempt to save face. The Washington Post debunked this attempt to save face already. This was already talked about in the comments of the various markets about RFK Jr. dropping out.
Frankly, I'm surprised you made a decision without reading the comments on this market and the linked ones. All your points have already been addressed, so we haven't actually moved forward
@PeterNjeim Alright, we can try that path as well! From the resolution guidelines:
https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Resolving-clarifying-markets-301e2d547237459eabf36bd069981e7c
When is it okay to change the resolution of a market?
The creator asks you to unresolve it because they made a mistake
No.
The creator optimistically resolved it too early (in what is 90%+ the correct way). In these scenarios don’t force it back open, but ask the creator to unresolve and set a new closing date. If they refuse then leave it as is and in the future it can be re-resolved if events play out that would change the resolution.
Doesn't apply.
The creator blatantly misresolves the market - this means everyone agrees that the resolution is wrong based on the criteria. In these instances you can feel free to correct it and warn the creator.
I don't agree, so less than 'everyone' agrees.
The creator “misresolves” the market but there is room for interpretation and it’s defensible, even if poorly. In these instances you can comment suggestions, but not change the resolution, and leave it at the creator’s discretion.
I could make a suggestion, but not change the resolution. It's at the creator's discretion.
If the creator is a large benefactor of an ambiguously resolved market then give them the benefit of the doubt the first time with a warning unless it’s very obvious it’s fraudulent. If it’s fraudulent or a repeat infraction, N/A if ambiguous or correct it if there is a correct resolution and report it to the admins for potential fines/bans.
The creator did not participate in the betting on this answer.
I don't think it is going to change.
@Eliza well, the creator did resolve it earlier as NO, then unresolved it, and waited weeks before resolving it as N/A. In this case, no more "events played out", as the speech was the only event in question, and it was resolved the moment RFK Jr. said he was suspending his campaign. So I'd argue the market was unresolved improperly and needs to be re-resolved back to its original resolution.
Your interpretation of "everyone" is wrong, it can be near unanimous. I see near unanimity in this comment section (and the linked markets) that he dropped out. There was one person that said it should be YES like you said, but they actually changed their mind, meaning the unanimity was strengthened.
I think there's an extremely strong case to be made that this resolves back to its original NO, due to 2 of the criteria you mentioned
I see near unanimity in this comment section (and the linked markets) that he dropped out.
The answer is not about if he dropped out. It's about if he announces he's not dropping out.
@Eliza that interpretation is even easier for the NO side. He did not announce that he wasn't dropping. No such words were uttered. He said he wasn't terminating his campaign, and not being terminated doesn't amount to the minimum threshold for not dropping out, suspending is enough to be considered dropped out, as the major media outlets and correctly reported
@PeterNjeim I happen to agree with Eliza, so there is clearly no unanimity.
Key point: This is a market about the Aug 23 speech, not his overall plans. I hope you’ll agree that if RFK said during the Aug 23 speech “I’m not dropping out,” but said later “lol lmao I am dropping out after all,” the answer would resolve YES.
The actual wording during the speech leaves some room for controversy, so the market creator used her discretion to resolve it N/A. This is a good and fair resolution which Manifold moderators will not overturn.
And please be nice to Eliza, who works very hard to moderate approximately one gazillion markets on this site and still gave detailed responses to your comments!
@Conflux I feel like we're going in circles. Your point was already a addressed in my first reply to Eliza. RFK Jr. did not drop out "after" the speech, he dropped out during it, which is what major media outlets reported (just scroll down in this very comment section and you'll see). Your lack of agreement isn't relevant as you haven't read the prior discussion. I already said that someone in this comment section (scroll down) said they believed it was YES but then changed their mind after discussion.
I feel like everything I say isn't being addressed. I've responded to every single point, demonstrated how it doesn't change the fact that this should resolve NO, yet three times now has a response been one that was already responded to in prior discussion.
I'll make it even easier to understand the absurdity of thinking this resolves YES.
This market immediately dropped to 0% when RFK Jr. announced he was dropping out. It was correctly resolved as NO. (That's unanimity).
Major media outlets (scroll down) said that RFK Jr. dropped out, writing about the speech. Let's talk about this one in more detail. If RFK Jr. didn't make a speech, no outlet would've said he dropped out. The speech is what made the outlets say he dropped out. That means the speech itself included the announcement of his dropping out. There is no other explanation. It wasn't dropping out "after" the speech.
I'll give an analogy that actually works. If we have a 100m dash, and each contestant is sprinting, and then mid-race, one of them puts their hands on their knees and starts panting out of exhaustion (and even gives the guy next to him a push forward), and walks to the finish line, would it be correct to say that the contestant dropped out of the race? Yes, it would. He's still "in it", still walking to the end. Let's face it, you can't win a sprint by walking. The act of giving up your chance to win the race (and even helping an would-be opponent) is synonymous with the act of dropping out of it.
Trump and Harris are the two most popular candidates, they both need crucial swing states to win. RFK Jr., as we all know, is too cool for swing states, he can actually announce that he's removing his name from swing state ballots, but that means he's still running to win, not merely walking. Like come on, dropping out of swing states? That alone is an announcement of dropping out.
Anyways, I'm sure you realize by now that if you don't respond fully to the points I'm making, I, the near unanimous bettors, commenters, and major media outlets, won't really be budging. He announced he was dropping out in his speech. He absolutely did not announce that he wasn't dropping out
@PeterNjeim First of all, people betting on a market before it’s hastily resolved is not unanimity.
I read the details of the market. I agree with Eliza and disagree with you. Furthermore, I don’t think we hold a strange outlier view. My prediction (happy to bet on this if you’d like!) is that in a fair poll of Manifold users, most of them would vote that N/A is an appropriate resolution for this market.
I’m sorry that I don’t have the capacity right now to continue discussing this, but I hope you will acknowledge that this is not what unanimity looks like!
@PeterNjeim Prop bet markets are harder to manage as the creator has to use their discretion to resolve basically a ton of independent contracts submitted by other users none of which have resolution criteria.
When participating in a prop bet market this is something you opt into participating in a system that is designed to be fun with low stakes compared to higher liquidity, individual markets with more detailed criteria. As such Stefanie in this case decided that the situation with RFK was a bit unexpected and ambiguous. The rules of Manifold in this instance state that the creator can decide to N/A it if they wish. Stefanie even clarified this in the description (which she didn't have to do, but did anyway to make sure people knew to expect it).
Neither I nor the mods think the situation is clearly a NO that we should override the creator. Criteria on other markets don't affect this one in any way either. Sorry you've had a bad experience, I wish there was a better solution for prediction market criteria 🤷♂️
@shankypanky when is this going to re-resolve as NO? You're viewing the other thread so I'm not sure what the hold up is. Going to repost these here:
Evidence that campaign suspensions are in the definition of "drop out":
[Edit: I don't think this anymore.] I think this should be YES. He said he's only suspending, not ending his campaign, and intends to stay on the ballot for some states.
Colloquially, dropping out means suspending or terminating. Some outlets say he dropped out, while most others clarify by saying he suspended his campaign
The Manifold definition of the word includes 'suspending the campaign.' I would be quite irritated if any other definition were used for this market than the official Manifold Politics 'drop out' market, which uses the following definition:
This question resolves YES if before November 5th 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or his campaign officially announces that he has suspended, terminated, or otherwise ended his 2024 campaign for the office of President of the United States.
Resolve to % of states where he remains on the ballot 😎