Dispute #279

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Curation 2020-07-12 01:58 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-08-04 16:56
Arbitrable Creator
Curate 0x3e57...476d

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 18 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x24d0db7e182fcd29ddea14c04bcb182c89cbb0c0 Yes 2020-07-18 02:20
0x8b26c150f0e4870511d142a5636d7e529a2cbbbf No 2020-07-15 18:16
0xf936b0f5b5a9af020801a6ee021ff0cf72028d38 No 2020-07-18 23:52

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 7 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
0x12fa14c9f49cee96c4f6ba8c7497f7ef825cae37 No 2020-07-21 16:46
0x27fe00a5a1212e9294b641ba860a383783016c67 No 2020-07-23 22:06
0x5091a8de5e7e750f5c7d0a5fb748a87439050599 No 2020-07-22 01:31
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-07-21 16:52
0xda8c5db86aa21547d55625b695a0351fcd561fd2 No 2020-07-21 23:29
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-07-21 16:49
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-07-21 16:49

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 15 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
0x12fa14c9f49cee96c4f6ba8c7497f7ef825cae37 No 2020-07-24 17:22
0x39d94ed8102740e8fad63e55473a466aa20e0983 No 2020-07-25 23:01
0x477adf27a761167484aeccbe08b9d30aaa12863e No 2020-07-26 15:44
0x48909739001fa130ea554d45508714824c2467b5 No 2020-07-26 12:31
0x4e880933aaa461a5fbd0d499f1e142d78f77c8ea No 2020-07-24 18:58
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-07-26 21:28
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-07-26 21:28
0x8e471e644c71635471933f16e925326c68a30327 No 2020-07-26 05:32
0xaead6593710bf28bf4848b24f4ed1f130773d7e6 No 2020-07-24 19:05
0xaead6593710bf28bf4848b24f4ed1f130773d7e6 No 2020-07-24 19:05
0xb841a0a64399e0c391629ede0ad2ce6336351b33 No 2020-07-24 16:27
0xe8349f1db09778a47fda6a89598a8dd24615bb4b No 2020-07-27 05:49
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-07-24 15:59
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-07-24 15:59
0xfae184739fbaa9c796fd0a28e96aee2a295567e4 No 2020-07-31 04:48


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Facts and upholding rules One cannot dismiss listing rules because submitter had clearly not carefully read them before making his submission. Using CCTIP is against rules. It was submitter's responsibility to submit his meme according to listing criteria. Jurors have to assess cases upon facts and rules, and not upon speculation of what were submitter's potential intentions. Otherwise, we would lose equity. So again, submitter should push a fresh submission of his meme while respecting rules. Meanwhile, this submission should be refused.

Evidence #2:

RED HERRING "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."

Evidence #3:

Rules Violation The submitter is intent upon misleading the jury. The rules are VERY explicit. Please view my attachment. The rules state that submissions "should not be....mainly fake interactions" and say the following: "Reject: The submitter paid for views of its YouTube video." This submitter has plain as day paid in crypto to a bot service to get fake interactions. This is a rules violation and whether or not the meme qualifies otherwise is a red herring argument

Evidence #4:

Fake Interactions If memes need no interactions to qualify why did you paid for fake interactions? Rules are really simple and submitter used @cctip_io for fake interactions.

Evidence #5:

Challenge Rebuttal II The submission is the meme. The tweet is the medium to share the meme. We do not apply the 'fake interaction' criterion on the medium. Fake interactions only apply for submissions that uses 'interactions' as a metric to qualify. Memes need no interactions to qualify. This is clearly the intent of the policy.

Evidence #6:

"should not be ... mainly fake interactions" The rules clearly state that it should NOT be mainly fake interactions. Whether the meme itself qualifies does not matter. The submission's interactions are mainly fake - it is transparent and plainly shown in the tweet that the interactions were paid for. This violates the very explicit rules.

Evidence #7:

Challenge Rebuttal Meme submissions do not require interactions. It is obvious that the "Has mainly fake interactions" criterion is there to deter malicious submissions to qualify for the "shared across social networks by a few users" or "has a small audience on the platform it is posted" criterions. If a direct link to a meme picture can qualify, it only makes sense that a tweet of said picture would also qualify, paid interactions or not. I'd even argue that the usage of cctip.io is proof of good faith, that the submitter is willing to pay to share the word (which is the whole point of the storytelling campaign), even when it's clear that it's not required. It's not in the spirit of the court to punish the submitter and it will reflect bad on Kleros' reputation if it happens.

Evidence #8:

Reviewing facts One has to carefully read list rules before submitting anything. By using CCTIP, submitter blatantly ignored/missed the rule that explicitly says that you cannot buy/use fake interactions. If submitter wanted to propose a meme only, I encourage him to do so by following the criteria and by doing a fresh submission with a sole link to the Meme. Meanwhile, this submission should be refused.

Evidence #9:

Submitted as a meme It can be understood that this content is submitted as just a meme, as titled "Meme" and argued from the beginning it was meant to be submitted under the meme condition and should be accepted as a meme. A tweet had to be made to get the media hosting and anyone can interact however they want with that tweet. In this case, the meme image is hosted on Twimg (along the video elsewhere there) where there is only a meme: https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1281718227077345282/pu/img/39lnxvRGKr2EqkAt.jpg Any post can be subject to suspicious interactions or attacks for rejection (third-party interference was reported in the Kleros juror chat). Cctip was used in good faith, based on a DeversiFi's positive thought of it (screenshot submitted before), and it would be unfair to reject the meme altogether, or even reject there were at least 50 authentic views (stats submitted before) by just assuming they are mainly fake. This submission should be added.

Evidence #10:

Answering to 0xC0e4...EA5b The content is submitted as a tweet and should be judged as such. If the content had been submitted as just the meme, I would have voted to add it. The rules are clear about not adding content with mainly fake interactions. To me, CCTIP is just one thing. There is enough evidence to question all the interactions of the twitter account. Just look at the ratio and stability of retweets/ likes and the handles of the accounts involved. Imagine the following scenario. This list could well be used to give away something as a promotion. Maybe the hosts would like to differentiate between content even within the standard impact list for impact. Just a meme could be worth less in terms of impact than a tweet with social interaction. So the hosts would decide to give a tweet a higher chance of winning than just a meme. Would it now be fair to have added a tweet with mainly fake interactions to the guy who made just a meme? In short, it violates the rules, distorts reality, and should not be added.

Evidence #11:

Who cares if some interactions are suspicious because a condition is met The new juror who voted to not add this meme has voted to add another submission that’s a very simple gif posted on gifs.com: http://kleroscan.com/juror/0x8b26c150F0e4870511d142a5636d7E529a2CBbbf So that’s how it works? Accept a very simple gif (not even a meme) without information on interactions, but reject a meme because the submitter wanted to tip some DOGE, which a DeversiFi admin thought was fine? Unlike that basic gif, there is *not* even any need for interactions for memes only, which take more creative efforts by the way. There is no point in rejecting a meme by looking into interactions when the meme is eligible *alone*. The restriction on fake interactions makes sense if there is a condition on minimum interactions. In those cases, as long as the minimum of interactions (in this case 0) is not mainly fake, it should be enough for acceptance, because any post can be subject to suspicious interactions or attacks for rejection. The other jurors of this round or appeal should accept this meme.

Evidence #12:

mainly fake interactions mainly fake interactions Watch retweets Many bots without subscribers or just a few https://twitter.com/cryptoselfmemes/status/1281718295427719169/retweets

Evidence #13:

Memes require no interactions and the interactions are mainly unpaid Dear Jurors: 1) “Accept submissions that: … Are memes related to DeversiFi or its ecosystem.” Memes alone without a requirement on interactions are eligible. They have a long life of impact because of replication. 2) Although not necessary, only 5 retweets were rewarded with DOGE out of fun and for initial diffusion. The meme has more than the double of 5 RTs, so it would not be “mainly fake interactions”. By the way, Ben at DeversiFi has said “I think cctip.io is fine”: https://ibb.co/fGM3spV 3) The meme was printed way more than 50 times, so it may qualify under that condition too. Such impressed: https://ibb.co/ZGQC7Nv Submitted much respectfully.

Evidence #14:

Challenge Justification Submissions shouldn't be made of mainly fake interactions. ex: "Reject: The submitter paid for views of its YouTube video." The tweet uses @cctip_io service, which distributes reward to users that interact with the tweet, which is akin to paid interactions.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve