This was reresolved N/A as after some disagreement the creator's decision was reinstated. I support it, and there is discussion both in the comments here and on discord if anyone is interested.

@traders sorry for the disruption with the changing resolution. It's something we try to avoid but genuinely everyone was just trying to find the "right" outcome and there was no malintent.

Feel free to argue more here, but the expectation is that the resolution will not change again.

Half a year after this market was created, MrBeast was accused of sexual harassment in a public lawsuit by five contestants on Beast Games. https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MrBeast-Amazon-Beast-Games-Complaint.pdf

i dont think im counting this

im not counting drawing dicks as sexual behavior on jimmys part , feeling the set was exploitative is also not jimmy doing an improper sex act toward someone, feels not in the spirit of the market, and also feels totally thrown into the lawsuit and not the point of the lawsuit

@strutheo It's literally a legally-filed accusation of sexual harassment against MrBeast. There was no concept that you had to like the accusation or care about it or whatever

@marvingardens harassment is a loose term and its naming more than just the indivudal , the purpose of this market was someone acusing him personally of something in a 1-1 situation

w/e ill na idc

@strutheo I genuinely don't understand why in situations like this you wouldn't just correctly resolve the market and then create a new market that corresponds to the different thing you decided you actually wanted to ask about.

im telling you the intent of the market as the creator sorry i was not clear when i made it back in 2024 thats why im fine naing

nobody else considred the lawsuit in the spirit of this market for the past year either /shrug

Several times on this website I see a market that was created a long time ago without much activity, research the topic, find the resolution criteria and bring the facts back to the market, only to be told the market creator actually wanted something else and so the market will be misresolved on purpose.

I hear you saying that you were thinking of something else. I genuinely don't understand why you wouldn't resolve the market correctly anyway.

If the "intent of the market" was to exclude a case that looks like this, which completely unambiguously fits the single-sentence phrasing of the market, to the T, as closely as possible, then you probably would have written something about that. I understand that you were vaguely imagining something a little different when you wrote this question. But so what? Why shouldn't it just resolve correctly anyway?

@strutheo I dug into the doc marvin posted and found some very compelling evidence for YES and conferred with a couple other mods on discord. your reasoning for N/A is generally sound; clarity wasn't provided soon enough, it's a messy old market you desired to avoid controversy on, and you didn't profit from the N/A. however I think a deeper look into the document shows there's a clear YES that satisfies the spirit of the market, so I've re-resolved.

@marvingardens I appreciate that you challenged this and brought it to mod attention. Your last message here is a bit negative however, and I'd encourage you to assume good faith on behalf of responsive creators like strutheo and treat them with the same regard. We have a culture around here that encourages creators to have some rein to interpret conflicted resolutions for themselves and from strutheo's perspective that's what happened. He canceled it to avoid anyone feeling like they were cheated, including you!

Lack of clarity and robust criteria in a market description is usually a sign that interpretation may vary greatly, and many creators like strutheo (and me!) value spirit of the market over letter of the market. In this case, I personally believe they aligned and strutheo just didn't dig in deep enough with the time he had. That's not a reason to disparage him.

@marvingardens

If the "intent of the market" was to exclude a case that looks like this, which completely unambiguously fits the single-sentence phrasing of the market, to the T, as closely as possible

MrBeast isn't even a defendant on the lawsuit afaict. The lawsuit against the company does not imo clearly meet the condition of,

Will Mr Beast be publicly accused of improper sexual behavior toward another person before the end of 2026?

unless you think it meant 'mr beast the company'

Jimmy isn't even a named defendant, it's only LLC's, and there is no explicit mention (could be redacted) of any of his conduct within the lawsuit at all, let alone directed toward another person

--

All of that to say that however this ends up being resolved, I think your framing (my initial quote in this comment) is wrong. It's probably still fine for it to resolve YES because "MrBeast" as an entity is clearly accused of some sexual misconduct as related to employees etc., but it makes total sense that this market would not mean that. I think the natural way to read this market is to assume it pertains specifically to the individual (James Jimmy MrBeast) in which case there is, as far as I am aware, ZERO "allegations of improper sexual behaviour toward another person", all of the allegations are that he was doing a bad job as an executive or building a bad environment, not any specific behaviour/interaction directed from him to someone else

@Gen @mods uh this is an NA not a yes, please fix it

@Stralor i disagree???