@traders It appears there is a loophole in this market. In honor of James, the CEO, and the fact there are several Yes holders that made their bets based on the current resolution criteria - no changes will occur.

It's possible a human saving a human's life could resolve this market Yes. The saving of the humans life needs to be what causes the market to resolve.

If the saving of a human life changes the resolution of a market from Yes/No or vice versa, but the close time is what causes the market to resolve that doesn't effect this market.

@KeenenW

I used "someone" which for the purpose of this market means "human", but I didn't specify that the death market had to be about a human

(Edit because I misread the "someone" who is the resolver, vs the living thing that the market is about)

What? That's pretty ridiculous and did anyone actually interpret it this way? It is true that you never said the death had to be a human death, but I would be shocked if anyone interpreted it that way. If you are really sticking with that ruling, I will go ahead and resolve a "death market" right away by killing a bacteria.

Please confirm your definition of "death market" for the purpose of this market.

This market is probably hopelessly ambiguous anyway. There's already this market that is better specified (but also useless because of interest rates): https://manifold.markets/bug/will-someone-commit-murder-for-the

@jack Death Market - any market about death with the "Death Markets" topic.

Not counting mislabeled markets. So a market not about death, but has the death market topic doesn't count.

If someone makes a longevity market and they are intentionally not trying to frame it as a death market I wouldn't count that unless mods decided to add the death market topic.

I agree that someone means human. I'm not suggesting a horse would cause a death market to resolve. I'm suggesting the death market might be about a horse and it having it's life saved.

@KeenenW If a horse counts, would it also count if someone make a death market about the fly in their kitchen?

@KeenenW I think this definition is dumb but since that's what you're using I've bet accordingly. Can you please update the description, especially to clarify that any living thing counts, not limited to humans

@Simon74fe from what the author said it counts

I will reiterate what I said above:

I will go ahead and resolve a "death market" right away by killing a bacteria.

@jack Yes that sounds ridiculous. Any update that causes such a big change in market price is usually a bad update

@Simon74fe what about all the people who bet no one the assumption that it had to be a human death?

@Daniel_MC @jack @Simon74fe I have consulted with my lawyer and am convinced that the last clarification was a bad decision and I'm planning to only count humans. I'm closing the market to get yalls feedback and will reopen in a few hours or early tomorrow.

Note someone saving a human life still counts.

@KeenenW it's a tough situation when people bet it up before you even make a clarification - someone has to lose money.

Maybe an NA is the best course of action.

@Daniel_MC Manifold is trying to move away from N/A. I sent Jack back his money and am going to update description before I reopen. If Jack does want an N/A so it doesn't effect league profits I am okay with that and won't protest.

@jack I have changed the description. You can reopen this market if you would like so you can sell off your Yes position before someone snipes you. Otherwise I will reopen this market sometime after lunch CST tomorrow.

@KeenenW thanks, I approve of this decision. While I really dislike reversing clarifications as a general principle, this clarification was so bad and the reversal quick enough (looks like only me and Mira traded) that it's for the best imo.

I have sold my YES shares for a loss of a bit over m$500.

I'm not sure what the policy on N/A is right now, Manifold was trying to limit it but keep it around for some things. (I think N/A of a market with resolution criteria issues immediately after opening it would be one of the most sensible uses of N/A.) I'll ask.

This is < 0.0001%, but interest rates make it inefficient to bet it down further.

Note that if you are a sociopath and have the opportunity to "cause a death market to resolve" you could make much more money e.g. shorting some public company before a top exec dies. And yet this scenario isn't a serious concern for the integrity of the stock markets.

@jack With the current demographic of Manifold and market prices? Or at any point in time regardless of anything else? I agree currently it's unlikely to happen. However, there is no time limit for this market. The only thing that causes a No resolution is Manifold doing something to prevent this. If that never happens this market will remain open until it resolves Yes.

Manifold will shut down before this ever happens (with probability extremely close to 1)

Also, I think it's a mistake to think prize points matter here. People are also motivated points in a game aka mana - it's not like people didn't manipulate markets when they were purely play money. But when you're talking about murdering someone for $3, that just doesn't make sense. As I said, if a socipath wanted real money, the stock market exists, and yet nobody seriously worries about the integrity of the stock market.

Also, there's no sharp line between "death markets" and "regular markets". Betting markets on who will win a sports tournament exist both on manifold and in many completely legal betting sites, even though these "incentivize" killing the players to make your bet pay out.

@jack It seems we both assumed this market could only resolve to Yes in the event of a death. Turns out I worded it in a way that the saving of a life could possibly resolve this Yes. Any chance you can run the numbers again and let us know what % you think this should be at?

@KeenenW I mean, I didn't actually "run the numbers", the probability is just so low it's not worth estimating with more precision than "extremely low". Nobody is going to save a life of someone that they wouldn't have otherwise saved, solely because it would make them a profit of $3. It's much more likely that someone would bet that was already going to save them regardless of the bet. And I mean, that's much more plausible but still extremely unlikely.

Hmmm, this market seems like a good further incentive to do this….

@popstarmike Markets about Manifold users getting banned have been N/A before because it incentivizes people to break TOS.

Non-predictive sports markets should be unlisted, unless this was changed at some point. Members of the Manifold staff have explained they can understand the bending of rules for non-predictive sports markets. I assume the same is true for Death Markets. Rules are bent because of the interest (and potential mana purchases) they generate.

Does this market resolve YES if someone temporarily prolongs someone's life causing a death market to resolve differently and then uses that mana to bet on a prize point market?

@ForTruth doctors just found an infinite money glitch

@ForTruth If their actions cause the Death Market to resolve, then Yes. If their actions simply change how a Death Market resolves, then No.

@KeenenW I do not understand this distinction, unless you mean directly cause the resolution itself, as in if they hack into Manifold's servers and resolve the market themselves.

Are you saying that if someone were to poison someone causing them to die either that day or the next day, with some uncertainty, then this market would still not resolve YES since their actions did not cause the resolution of the Death Market, but merely influenced it?

@ForTruth I didn't realize when I was making this market that a life getting saved could resolve this Yes. But, based on how I phrased it and you asking this question it may be possible. If there is a death market, perhaps a short fuse, about a burning building or people trapped in a cave with limited oxygen. "Will the folks trapped in this cave be saved from death?" Then one of the rescuers bet on that market and saves their lives (causing the market to resolve), then bets on a prize point market this resolves Yes.

If the poison was the cause of death this market would resolve Yes.

My understanding of your original question is that the prolonging of life simply changes the resolution from Yes to No or vice versa, but the reason that market would resolve is because of the close time - not the prolonging of life. So if the question was, "Will this person on death's door have their life prolonged" or something along those lines. It is possible that the prolonging of life could resolve this Yes. If anyone involved in prolonging that person's life bets on that market and wins mana then bets on a prize point market.

@KeenenW Ah, I think I understand now what you were saying. This market would never resolve YES due to a Death Market that resolved due to reaching its close time. Someone's actions preventing or delaying the resolution of a Death Market market are not relevant. That makes sense.