Dispute #135

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2019-12-06 18:19 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2019-12-24 02:59
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 5 0 3

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2019-12-10 14:53
Yes 2019-12-08 16:06
No 2019-12-09 14:32

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 4 0 2
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
No 2019-12-12 15:39
No 2019-12-12 15:39
Yes 2019-12-15 17:59
No 2019-12-15 05:43
No 2019-12-13 00:12

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 6 0 2
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
No 2019-12-17 12:37
Yes 2019-12-16 21:02
Yes 2019-12-16 21:02
Yes 2019-12-16 22:07
Yes 2019-12-19 15:25
Yes 2019-12-19 15:25
Yes 2019-12-19 15:25
Yes 2019-12-17 14:08
No 2019-12-18 22:22
No 2019-12-18 22:22
No 2019-12-16 21:46
No 2019-12-16 21:46
No 2019-12-17 15:26


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Fallacious rationale You can hardly warn about policies deconstruction when you, yourself, have your own reading of them. Listing criteria clearly indicate that the required size refers to the token symbol and not the image, otherwise you would not be able to set, and achieve, a quality standard for submissions. Regarding the distortion argument, it looks meaningless because one has just to provide a logo with a correct scale (see attached logo).

Evidence #2:

Arguments on wording of policy are incorrect After a careful second review of the policy on appeal, I have decided to change my opinion to support the Submitter. The Challenger has created a misinterpretation on how the policy is worded to create doubt. I think the current wording of the policy still more clearly supports the submitter and this logo clearly should be accepted. I have attached my full reasoning on why I have changed my mind.

Evidence #3:

Bad Faith The submitter is now resorting to semantics. "Bad" submissions of course refer to submissions that didn't pass the requirements. The examples presented don't hold any value as those are old submissions, luckily accepted as previous challengers missed them. Not on this challenger's watch they won't. The policy is clear: "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG of at least 200x200 px. It should be centered and take most of the space available in the image." Blank space is NOT part of the token symbol. Claiming that 200x200px includes the whole image file is nonsense. Let's imagine for a second that the rule meant that the blank space is part of the logo, this introduces a contradiction: if a token symbol's ratio is less than 1:2 (ex: 99x200 px), the token will then by definition will never pass the TCR, as it won't fulfill the "take most of the space available in the image" criterion (99x200 px is less than 50% of 200x200 px). As the actual rule doesn’t include blank space, such contradictions won’t happen and the minimal submission quality will be consistent. This submission is therefore invalid.

Evidence #4:

Jurisprudence, Not Bad Submissions It seems the challenger labels any submission he doesn't like as bad. It's been proved that challenger is interpreting listing requirements wrong and many examples shown as a jurisprudence. Therefore this submission clearly valid. I'm sure jurors will notice it, either in this round or if not, in future rounds.

Evidence #5:

Not Applicable The fact that 1% of bad submissions have passed the screening in the past doesn't mean we should continue allowing such submissions. They should be removed from the TCR.

Evidence #6:

Similar Accepted Submissions All of them have image size >= 200x200 and cropped size < 200x200 pixels, just like this submission. And they were accepted. https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x4b6b5c8f16547208b61703fc851dfc97be8666c7389618f152dc9fb8bbe8ba5e https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x8ea7f1ec003739749b64d8e1a0f367179e35c31fe7984cee8446bd2fb15572bb https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x9783de14e63e607d5e0e02e7103725868265efb4a80f5448ea48af678d728093 https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x6a23bd7c37b2acc5cca95df9126eb28d99ce08400d95024bb4221f480c52e6eb

Evidence #7:

Submission Should Be Accepted Submission doesn't violate any listing criteria, it should be accepted.

Evidence #8:

Logo does not fit listing criteria nor "spirit of the law" Requester presented flawed arguments. I agree on the fact that rules allow for a good quality registry and this obviously includes the logo. But you cannot claim achieving good quality while the logo appears small due to transparent parts. Logo has to comply 200x200 minimum pixel size, height or width, without transparent pixels. Again, see attached example of a correct quality logo fitting listing criteria.

Evidence #9:

there's no point fighting with no new arguments A decision can only change if new pieces of evidence are shown to the court. That's not the case here. The Ace Attorney is not here to take Requester money. it's time to accept a lost case and submit a new token compliant with the court policy. I have no doubt that this new proposal will be accepted without issues. Do the right thing and stop appealing. Money invested by the Requester is a Sunk Cost.

Evidence #10:

Summary Of Refutations Of Challenger's Arguments Your honor, please see the attachment for a summary of the refutations of challenger's arguments.

Evidence #11:

The Logo Has %14 Higher Resolution Than Minimum 200x200px rule is aiming to set a minimum resolution for submitted logos. This rule assumes logos are square or almost square, that's why it specifies both height and width. The spirit of the law is to limit the minimum resolution to 200x200=40000 pixels. However, this logo is horizontal. Its width is significantly higher than it's height. That's why when it's transparent space cropped to form a rectangle, it becomes 300x152px (=45600 pixels), which is still a %14 higher resolution than 200x200px (=40000 pixels) minimum. Therefore, this logo is high resolution enough to fit in T2CR.

Evidence #12:

The size is the problem The main problem with the uploaded logo is the actual size is less than 200x200 px when the transparent space is cut out. Each of your presented tokens have extra transparent space, but when those spaces are cut out they are still bigger than the 200x200 constraint. Please resubmit the token again with the correct sizing

Evidence #13:

There Are Many Registered Examples Like This https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x6cee1935459c79f71441b0de0b9c70967a8badfc49e04882ecfcd4f27f2035a4 https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x6896f9dc77541cf216ca86f44592dd19f6c5eec9e80d19af9f63273a03ed7566 https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x0e5c3335bea80d5cd7088f1d84016fe60283343a4d3bc912ffe646ede3feeccb https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x258c9b2d862764df416e4ba42571747afa365c6177e722bb07de4984ec2e280c https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xf57640fd8dd6638fc1a9d75db628754c3b4c8c19995ecc584f22b965a2a41c12

Evidence #14:

Misinterpretation of Policy The submitter is misinterpreting the policy. The minimal logo must be at least 200px x 200px, excluding the transparent space. By submitter's reasoning, any logo that "take most of the space available in the image" only need 51% of the image space (101px x 101px) to pass the TCR policy, while the rest of the image can be a transparent space. This is clearly not what the policy intended. In addition, the uploaded logo isn't even taking the most space available, as evidenced by the attached file.

Evidence #15:

There Is No Such Rule That Stripping All Whitespace From Logo Design Is Required There is no such rule that stripping all whitespace from logo design is required. Challenger is inventing his/her own rule interfering with the design.

Evidence #16:

Logo does not fit size listing criteria Listing criteria clearly states that the logo (thus excluding transparent parts/pixels) has to be 200 pixels size minimum, be it height or width. Besides there is no rule asking for a square logo. Respecting listing rules allows for a standard good quality token curated registry, so these rules have to be enforced. One can see an attached example of what a correct size Mysterium logo should be. Submission should then be rejected and requester should push a new submission fitting criteria.

Evidence #17:

Logo Fulfills Requirements Logo fulfills requirements in the policy. Challenger invented his/her own rule here. The logo is centered and takes the most space available in the image. There is padding whitespace in the image, of course, to make the image a square. This challenge is meritless.

Evidence #18:

Evidence Attached is the actual logo with transparent blank space removed

Evidence #19:

Token challenge Logo height is far less less than 200px (152px) when whitespace is cut out
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve