See the linked market for context:
https://manifold.markets/CodeandSolder/will-pc-be-punished-for-blatant-pro-a94a127ec6c8
This market closes when that market does.
Resolves YES if there is reliable evidence that a decision was made before close time. I will resolve based on the state of public knowledge at close time, evidence that emerges later will not count even if I haven't gotten around to resolving yet.
The spirit of this question is whether a decision will be made in time such that it would cause the linked market to trade close to 0 or 100%. Though I am not formulating it in that way, the quality of evidence I'll accept is basically what traders would expect to move the linked market to ~95% or <~5%.
I won't bet on this market.
Edit: if the close time of the linked market changes for whatever reason, that does not affect this market - its close time will remain as it is now.
Further edit: this market will resolve YES on a decision being handed down by the trustworthy-ish users by market close, even if that decision is not yet signed off on by David Chee, and even if any decided punishment is not implemented by market close. I do not know whether the linked market will require the punishment to be actually implemented by close in order to resolve YES. Edit: the creator has clarified that a decision is sufficient and doesn't need to be implemented. Nonetheless the trustworthy-ish decision is not the final one, and this market resolves on that alone, so there is a small possibility this market could resolve YES upon the trustworthy-ish users deciding a punishment is appropriate, even though the other one resolves NO (because the decision wasn't signed off on by David yet).
1,000
3.00
PC is going to be punished. But that's different from saying that it's been decided.
Traders please note the most recent edit, which emphasises that this market will resolve on the decision being handed down from the trustworthy-ish users, even if it any punishment decided is not yet implemented. Whereas the linked market may only resolve YES if a punishment is actually applied in time (I am not sure, but that's how it reads).
Edit: it currently seems that the other market will resolve based on Admin announcement of a decision, whether implemented or not
@MrLuke255 The TUs handing down a decision means them telling David Chee that they have made a decision. So it will look like the TUs saying "David, we've decided our recommendation for whether PC should be punished for profit manipulation, it is: ..."
And this market will resolve on evidence like TUs or David saying that this happened, or somebody posting a screenshot of discord, something like that.
Edit: as per below comments, I now think "telling David" is too strict, and will within reason reimburse losses caused by my lack of clarity here, apologies.
@Joshua Decision has to be made by Trustworthyish users, but it doesn't say how many of them. From my point of view it should be all of them 😅
@Joshua The whether, not the how.
I see. You're saying that it appears they've made a decision about whether he will be punished, and you're perhaps suggesting that since David is in the chat, this is as good as official? Even though they might not ping David until they have made other related decisions (on which this market does not depend).
@MrLuke255 it is in accordance with whatever collective decision-making process the TUs decide to operate with
@chrisjbillington fwiw, the options being debated do include 0.
I don't like this question fwiw. I don't have a clear idea of what you mean/how this will resolve
@Joshua @MarcusAbramovitch apologies for not thinking the resolution criteria through better before going to bed last night. I am not 100% sure how I will resolve, but to put some of my thinking in plain view:
it hadn't occurred to me that making a decision about whether he should be punished, and reporting it to David would be appreciably delayed, due to other related decisions needing to be made (such as how to be punished).
So above I used "reporting to David" as the canonical way to say that a decision was made, but when I wrote the question I wasn't thinking so narrowly and would be happy with other evidence of more or less official decisions being made on (the TUs' recommendation for) whether PC should be punished. The how much or how he'll be punished isn't important, as the other market depends only on whether he will be punished, not the how much.
If "no punishment" is still on the cards, this definitely doesn't resolve yet, but my current thinking is to resolve based on any good evidence a decision was made about whether he should be punished - whether or not David is pinged.
If I can't resolve reasonably, I'll N/A.
@chrisjbillington ah, the problem i am seeing is we haven't reported on a decision to him. We are still debating.
@MarcusAbramovitch If you're still debating whether or not PC should be punished, then this definitely doesn't resolve yet.
If you decide that he should be, and it's more or less official, I think it's reasonable to count this as handing down a decision even if you don't explicitly ping David (because you're still debating related things) - like, if he could in principle read the chat and see that the decision was made, and would have no doubts about it, I don't think it should matter whether you reached out to him to let him know, or he saw it himself, or hadn't seen it yet. Just that the decision was made.
The delay in pinging him because there are other decisions to be made (and to not waste his time with many pings) is not something I want to cause this market to resolve NO.
(I regret saying that "telling David" should be the bright line, and within reason will reimburse losses of people who bet based on this)
I think we're only "debating" that in a technical sense. Technically, we haven't made any decision yet, so technically 0 punishment is still on the table. In actuality, that is not going to happen.