Dispute #252

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Curation 2020-07-11 14:42 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-08-04 16:56
Arbitrable Creator
Curate

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 1 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
No 2020-07-18 23:39
No 2020-07-18 23:39

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 0 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-07-28 15:21
Yes 2020-07-25 21:41
Yes 2020-07-26 23:28
Yes 2020-07-24 21:39
Yes 2020-07-24 21:39
Yes 2020-07-24 21:39
Yes 2020-07-31 04:50

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Submission fulfills rules Contrary to what challenger is claiming there is no rule in the listing criteria that says a date is mandatory. According to listing criteria, one should refer to market validity rules (see extract below): "The question shouldn't be expected to resolve as invalid according to market validity rules." Yet, market validity rules clearly says (see attached png file if needed): "If no specific date is given in a question, it is assumed that the resolution date will be considered". This market resolution date is set at 2020-12-20 - 00:00 UTC and is valid. Therefore, this submission is respecting listing criteria and should be accepted.

Evidence #2:

Challenger is inventing a rule Last evidence by the challenger state "That is to be as precise as possible, to avoid confusion. The submitted title is not as precise as possible, that's why this submission should be rejected.". There is no such a rule in the listing criterion.

Evidence #3:

Title should be as precise as possible In the listing policies document, all the title examples given had a date in it. All composed like: "Will [X] happen in [DATE] in [PLACE]". That is to be as precise as possible, to avoid confusion. The submitted title is not as precise as possible, that's why this submission should be rejected.

Evidence #4:

It's an obvious assumption Referencing from the rule "Entities are assumed to reference the most obvious entity with that name, taking the context into account." Kanye West announcement was one of the hottest news recently and this market is well understood referring to the current year of US presidential race. Also, the indicated resolution date which is a month after the planned date of the election, clearly implies it's for 2020.

Evidence #5:

The question is not tricky Everyone is aware that the question is referring to the current presidential election that Kanye West announced it will run on. According to Omen market rules (https://omen.eth.link/rules.pdf) "Entities are assumed to reference the most obvious entity with that name, taking the context into account.". So "the United States presidential election" definitely refers to the election which is scheduled to happen this year. Here context is really clear: - The market resolves this year and there is only the 2020 election scheduled to be done by that time. - Kanye announced running for it. - Media announced that Kanye was running for it. Because it is very clear which election this market refers to it is not expected to resolve as invalid.

Evidence #6:

Challenge Justification Submission violates the listing policies; "The question shouldn’t be tricky." The question is tricky because it doesn't mention the year in which Kanye West will win the United States presidential election. The question of the following submitted market is valid: "Will Joe Biden win the 2020 United States presidential election?" Thus, this submission violates the Omen listing policies, and should therefore be denied.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve