Can we get some clarity on how this will resolve? Assumption is that anything that happens resolves yes..?

This market seems a bit strange, how come there is only one option?

Surest bet ever. how was it so low?

@FoxKHTML This market is using a framework where the odds are dependant on one another. This framework implies only one of these options can resolve YES. (I don't think this market was set up correctly.)

@Quroe

I might need to reach out to admins, because I don't see an option to correct this, if you all see as an error. Will go through FAQs first.

@EmunaelLator Yeah that’s not what I thought. Modddddds

@EmunaelLator Unfortunately there’s no way to change the market to allow resolving multiple to YES. I think that resolving to N/A is probably the best option here.

It looks like this is mistakenly created at a "one outcome" prediction

@mods help?

There's no way to fix this market after the fact. The only solution is to cancel this market and make a new one.

@EmunaelLator make sure to select "Set" as the question type when you make the new market.

I'm surprised that mention the crowd size is so low, also, it's not really outrageous

@DavidOman Well, I mean it is if you consider the setting, right? You can talk about anything but you are taking over the presidency, but I do get what you are saying. Oh, I realize my error, I wanted to say that he brings up the crowd size from the last time (2016 / 2017 ) the one were he felt attacked. That makes it "outrageous" that he brings up the crowd size from 8 years ago.

@EmunaelLator ah yes. Outrageous. xD

@MattP my bad it was supposed to be:
> "Mention the 2017 inauguration crowd size"
If traders vote (by thumbs up) I will change the description.
And I think that bringing up a grudge from 8 years ago, is pretty outrageous, right ?

The question could definitely use clarification on how things like "say something racist" or "tell a lie" will be determined.

Also, you can get a more comprehensive idea of the quality of the predictions made on this platform: https://calibration.city/

@BrunoParga I am looking into what I can do after posting the question, off the top of my head I was thinking looking at the reporting (AP) after the speech. As we know there is a counter of the lies that were told while in office (since these were committed to the national archive). Something racist, we have to agree on that, but again common sense, all immigrants are criminals would be racist, objectively, right?

I am also looking into what you linked to, trying to improve this market.

@EmunaelLator "common sense, all immigrants are criminals"

Here's where we get into interpretation, though. Would you say he has said this in the past? His defenders would argue he hasn't.

@MattP, aren't all illegal immigrants criminals by definition?

@JimAusman no they're not. Immigration law is not criminal law, and administrative violations are not crimes.

@JimAusman how is that relevant to what I quoted? The quote was "all immigrants are criminals", not "all illegal immigrants are criminals".

@BrunoParga excellent point thanks!

@JimAusman I might have an issue with English as it is not my first language. In many languages "criminal" is a word that is synonymous to "murderer" so I think we should agree to resolve it to YES if he mentions that all immigrants are violent or murderers. I think that constitutes "something racist".

what if he does multiple? these aren’t mutually exclusive

@mattyb I think @Manifold's rules for multiple choice markets will apply and you win / lose based on how many options you trade in.

@EmunaelLator will it resolve to the percentage equally split between everything he does? Or did you mean to do a non linked set market?

@TheAllMemeingEye I'm in agreement. I think that this market isn't set up quite right, and I think N/A is reasonable.

@EmunaelLator I don't think you set the market up that way (though you may have intended to)