Criteria for a “Yes” Resolution:
• Completed Impeachment Process: President Yoon Suk Yeol has been impeached as defined in point 1 above, with both the National Assembly’s passage of the impeachment motion and the Constitutional Court’s confirmation occurring before 11:59 PM Korean Standard Time (KST) on January 2nd, 2025.
• Resignation After Impeachment Motion: President Yoon Suk Yeol resigns from office after the National Assembly passes an impeachment motion against him but before the Constitutional Court reaches a decision, and this resignation occurs before the deadline.
Criteria for a “No” Resolution:
• No Impeachment Motion Passed: The National Assembly does not pass an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol before the deadline.
• Impeachment Motion Not Confirmed or No Resignation: An impeachment motion is passed by the National Assembly but is not confirmed by the Constitutional Court before the deadline, and President Yoon Suk Yeol does not resign after the motion is passed.
• Resignation Without Impeachment Motion: President Yoon Suk Yeol resigns from office before any impeachment motion is passed by the National Assembly.
• Removal by Other Means: President Yoon Suk Yeol leaves office due to death, incapacitation, or any method other than the impeachment process defined above.
Additional Clarifications:
• Time Zone: All times and dates refer to Korean Standard Time (KST, UTC+9).
• Sequence of Events: For a “Yes” resolution under point 2, the resignation must occur after the impeachment motion has been officially passed by the National Assembly.
• Legal Challenges: Any legal proceedings or appeals related to the impeachment that are unresolved by the deadline will not affect the market’s resolution.
• Extensions and Delays: Any extensions, delays, or procedural changes in the impeachment process after the deadline will not be considered.
1,000
3.00@benshindel It refers to "as defined in point 1 above." But there is no point 1 above. The AI just hallucinated that shit
@TiredCliche hmm, I mean that might've just been the user took that part out while editing it or something. The actual criteria for YES and NO, while slightly confusing, are indeed consistent
@benshindel we know that Manifold added criteria that changed the original intent of the creator. So it wouldn't really be surprising if they subsequently deleted an earlier part of the description
You can see the history. It started with no description, then the description was added. That's it.
IIRC they used AI to help write the description. I wonder if that "as defined in point 1 above" referred to something in earlier in the AI conversation, but although it definitely is a mistake it doesn't really matter, the description makes sense if we ignore it.
Investigators arrive at South Korean president’s residence to carry out arrest warrant
Updated 6:55 PM EST, Thu January 2, 2025
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 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.
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?
@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)