Doesn’t look like there’s a lot of cooperation going on https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-martial-law-yoon-constitutional-court-2917db5da7c461ef3eb732e17f938114

I'd have resolved this YES today based on the criterion in the title, but a mod added additional conditions in the description. Sucks that traders lost mana.

I strongly dislike markets which become misleading or which wind up being about the creator's interpretation of the criteria. Hope Manifold comes up with a solution (maybe something like consensus of LLMs?). I'm still salty about losing my early profits because an ESL creator interpreted "will [state] by [date]" as "will [state] on [date]." Manifold clarified at the time that creators can even resolve against the explicit criteria in the title & description as long as they're acting in good faith. Seems absurd to me. Traders should bet on the probability of the criteria, not the probability of the creator's mental state.

In this case I regret that I didn't read over the mod's description; noticed its departure from what I'd expressed in the title; and contested it. But I didn't, and there's been many trades since the description was added. So I'll resolve per the description.

@ElmerFudd what did the mod add?

@ElmerFudd I suggest you edit the title to eg "Will Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol be impeached [⚠ and gone] before January 3rd 2025?" because drive-by thousands bettors sure still keep hitting my 50% limit orders.

@ElmerFudd not a mod - manifold admins did the change when they sweepified the market. It did need a clarification, and this was a fairly reasonable one, but it either should have been kept more in line with the title, or new market, or the title should have been updated.

@Gurkenglas I tried to edit the title but seems like I can't, maybe because of sweeps?

@Gurkenglas Thanks. Done.

Seems reasonable! Just pinging @SirSalty, who added the criteria, to see if he has anything to say on this.

@ElmerFudd Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the poor experience. I can confirm that Jack's assessment of the situation is correct and that I was clarifying it before sweepifying.

I think we've improved a lot of making sure our criteria are robust, but will need to be more careful to not clarify in such a way that deviates from the original intention.

@ElmerFudd A way to avoid this in the future would be to add a description to your question instead of just relying on the title, which is short by design. Even though it may seem like an unambiguous title to you other people can interpret it differently and there are always edge cases to address.

A lot of the issue seems to be that many Korean questions will have been written quickly without understanding the Constitutional Court's confirmation role (I fell into this trap myself)

What I found (find) objectional here is that the original question had two possible resolution points, one which is (I would argue) more intuitive and one which is more technically accurate. When the market was sweepified the more accurate one was chosen, but because of the time frame this made it very hard for the market to resolve YES, which ironically further increased the intuitiveness of the other option, leading to exactly the situation we have now seen.

I think that, at the very least, ratings for the question should be turned off. It's not fair that the creator is going to get a lot of negative feedback for something they didn't do.

And really, what I think is that people sweepifiing markets need more robust procedures to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. Perhaps as a rule of thumb, if you need to add so many criteria the market wasn't a good candidate in the first place?

@JoshuaWilkes Probably better to add a ton of criteria than create a duplicate

@bagelfan if new criteria change the question enough that it resolves in a way different from the intention of the creator, I don't think it is better.

(And obviously, if this is possible it shows that the original tank question wasn't well specified)

It’s strange this is tagged US Politics.

The description also mentions “point 1 above” while being the first bullet point?

@GleamingRhino also Republican Party for some reason lol

@GleamingRhino the automatic ai group tagging certainly has room for improvement lol

people trading here, this market requires either:

1) the national assembly vote to impeach him (which they just did) AND the constitutional court to confirm it, which has NOT happened and which has taken months in the past; OR

2) the national assembly vote to impeach him AND he resigns

• he has shown no willingness to resign so far

• the chance polymarket assigns to yoon getting out by ANY means in 2024 (not just resignation) is 12% (up from 10% before the impeachment vote just passed)

• https://polymarket.com/event/yoon-out-as-president-of-south-korea-in-2024

@summer_of_bliss Yeah, I'm realizing that. I'll just take my loss then

@summer_of_bliss yeah, I was excited but it seems you're right

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c140xjv31lxo

South Korean lawmakers have voted to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol over his failed attempt to impose martial law, which sparked massive protests across the country.

[...]

Yoon has vowed to fight on and said he "will never give up", describing the vote as a temporary pause to his presidency.

[...]

The constitutional court now has 180 days to rule on whether Yoon's impeachment should be upheld or whether he can return to office. If it rules in favour of impeachment, an election for the next president must be called within 60 days.

Yoon has been suspended while Prime Minister Han Duck-soo has taken over as acting president.

Still, plenty of time left for him to buckle under the pressure of almost the entire country wanting him to go

In 2016 it took 92 days to confirm the impeachment

Impeachment is not the same as removal from office, by most common sense definitions Yoon was just impeached. Market title is very misleading imo.

@Kraalnaxx gotta read the description 😅

@Kraalnaxx Title-Description Mismatches (TDMs) have become an epidemic on Manifold.

@Kraalnaxx I agree. I left the description blank because I thought the title was adequate. I'd have resolved it YES today, but the mod who added the sweepstakes market also added the description, so I'll abide by that.

@ElmerFudd Huh, that's really odd. I sympathize with your position, but mods really shouldn't be changing market criteria like that on a whim.