Dispute #312

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-07-28 23:34 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-08-05 09:14
Arbitrable Creator
Curate

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-08-01 21:01
No 2020-07-30 21:33
No 2020-08-01 19:08

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Same article re-submitted Juror presenting his view. I understand the submitter's frustration of a bug preventing him to appeal. BUT as the challenger points out, the policy "And should not be: ... Has already been submitted or is a slight variation of a previous submission. Note that modifying a previously rejected submission to make it acceptable is allowed." is not met as the article was already rejected. Although it is impossible to assess if the submission has been modified as no hard-copy of the article was saved at the time of rejection, nothing indicates it has (and the submitter does not claim it either). Hence the case should be rejected. Note: the fact that a bug prevented an appeal and the remark from the Curate dev are irrelevant, I am following the policy - nothing else. The policy does not make any exception for potential bugs (maybe it should be amended?), and the guy could be Mr President himself I would still just follow the policy. Sorry.

Evidence #2:

Is this fair ?! Now there is a juror who voted 'no, don't add it' Although I have provided evidence that my article has been read 500 times. If this evidence is not enough, "in your view," Okay. But there is another condition that has been met: - Expand significantly the Kleros knowledge base " Accept: A high quality article providing an in depth explanation of a dapp relying on Kleros." Why you don't look for this condition and it was met!? Is this fair ?!

Evidence #3:

Clarification > Finally, I would like to finish my argumentation saying that it's not very polite of your part to threat the jurors saying that now you can appeal. Some times, it's better to accept the others opinion about what we do. Of course! That is not what I meant at all! So let me reiterate: 1- I do not know if this item should be accepted or not! Just that jurors should evaluate the evidence instead of dismissing it due to a precedent *potentially* established due to a faulty software. 2- This is a word of caution! Not meant to be a threat at all!

Evidence #4:

Unacceptable evidence You are arguing that your article reach more than 500 views. But, you know something ?, This information it's only known by you. Even more, you are showing a screenshot of google analytics, a tool which could be only checked by yourself, and also, in this plataform is known that has a lot of ghost views if it's not configured properly (I encourage to the jurors to search in google or your search engine "google analytics ghost views"). Even more, you are only sharing a screenshot of this metrics, which could be easylly adulterated.

Evidence #5:

eligibility for the high impact Accept submissions that satisfy at least one of those conditions: Kinldy read, only "one condition" and not all conditions One of these conditions Expand significantly the Kleros knowledge base My article provided a general explanation of Kleros + an in-depth explanation of each existing Dapp + some infographics + written in Arabic which helps to attract of new users Accept: An article has been read by at least 500 times Has my article been read 500 times? Yes. Is there a condition for the article should "liked,shared"? No. Of course, the engagement is very important, but as I mentioned, I did not publish the article on a social media to talk about that. Everyone talks about the condition "read by at least 500 times", "although I have attached evidence that my article met this condition", but why does everyone condone the other condition that has been met? I think that all conditions must be considered equally, and if the article met to one condition this means that the article is acceptable. Thanks

Evidence #6:

Dear Submitter All the evidence and your arguments presented in this case are around the bug in the UI that prevents you to appeal the previous case (Case 238), but in that case, the jurors after look the evidence that you present (the same evidence that you are showing in this case), the rule was 3 to 0 against add your item to the High Impact List. This to me, it's a closed case. Why this is not an high impact article?, because there is no evidece that some readers had interact with the article, nobody has share it ,or liked it. Maybe, you can write an improved version of this article, with more engagement and this could qualify as high impact. This article, in the submission time, belongs more to the Standard List than to the High Impact list. I encourage you to submit the item in the standard curated list.Finally, I would like to finish my argumentation saying that it's not very polite of your part to theat the jurors saying that now you can appeal. Some times, it's better to accept the others opinion about what we do.

Evidence #7:

Addendum Of course, this is not to say that jurors should accept or reject the submission. Just that the precedent in this case should not be taken as an excuse to not judge the case. Evaluate the criteria and the evidence posted here: https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x99A0f0e0d9Ee776D791D2E55c215d05ccF7286fC/0x4714a3e7f7b0b6ef98f4e992a4dcd1bde6b5fc00fe0655aa50739c990c74ebcb

Evidence #8:

Curate Dev/Witness https://twitter.com/mtsalenc/status/1288569168065892352?s=20

Evidence #9:

Curate Dev/Witness here I can confirm there was a bug in the UI that prevented the crowdfunding of the previous case. The challenger argues that the submission should be rejected because : 1- He lost he lost a dispute against the cooperate (case 164) where he could not challenge a submission due to the bug in the UI. 2- This submission was rejected before. Lets go through it. 1- The challenger did not lose any money on case 164, he just did not _potententially_ win because he could not challenge. This is very different from this case. 2- Consider the possibility that the submission was *incorrectly* rejected before, the submitter lost his deposit and could not appeal the case. This is very different because the submitter actually lost money. Finally on the matter of precedence, we do not keep on giving incorrect rulings just because someone gave an incorrect ruling in the past. I urge jurors to carefully analyze this case by itself and see if the item fits the criteria. Appeals work now!

Evidence #10:

Jurisprudence II My dear friend, there is jurisprudence that we cannot blame the UI for not challenging a case. The smart contract is always available to do it. In fact, I was the victim of that bug. Look at case 168.

Evidence #11:

There was a Bug I mentioned to you that I had intended to make an appeal, but due to a bug with the site "it's not my fault" that's why I could not do the appeal. Again the conditions are clear, "Accept: A high quality article providing an in depth explanation of a dapp relying on Kleros." And "Accept: An article has been read by at least 500 times" The two conditions were met in my article. Kindly note that: When it comes to an article/post published on social media we can then talk about liking, sharing and commenting. But when the article is on a site or blog, then we talk about the number of visitors and the number of reading the article. Thank you for your understanding

Evidence #12:

Jurisprudence was established When your previous presentation of this story was rejected and you did not appeal, jurisprudence was established. Furthermore, your article have not been liked nor shared, and it does not present any comment. However, jurisprudence established during the previous dispute, regarding the same story, is enough for the jury to decide.

Evidence #13:

Eligibility for the high impactE I wanted to make an appeal but due to a problem (BUG) I couldn't My article is eligible for the high impact and met 2 conditions, the requirement is at least 'one condition' " Accept submissions that satisfy at least one of those conditions " First condition : "Accept: A high quality article providing an in depth explanation of a dapp relying on Kleros. " the article provides a comprehensive view of the project, with a depth explanation of each DApp, highlighting advantages and providing examples and images in Arabic, which helps to promote Kleros in the Arab world and bringing new users. Second: " Accept: An article has been read by at least 500 times " Please be attentive to this condition that only related to " Read ". not required likes or share or anything else. Kindly see the attachment ' From google analytics ' , that clearly showed that my article has been read more than 500 times

Evidence #14:

Eligibility for the high impact I wanted to make an appeal, but due to a problem (a bug), I couldn't do it. My article is eligible for the high impact and met 2 conditions, the requirement is at least 'one condition' " Accept submissions that satisfy at least one of those conditions " First condition : "Accept: A high quality article providing an in-depth explanation of a dapp relying on Kleros. " the article provides a comprehensive view of the project, with a depth explanation of each DApp, highlighting advantages and providing examples and images in Arabic, which helps to promote Kleros in the Arab world and bringing new users. Second: " Accept: An article has been read by at least 500 times " Please be attentive to this condition that only related to " Read ". not required likes or share or anything else. Kindly see the attachment ' From google analytics' , that clearly showed that my article has been read more than 500 times.

Evidence #15:

Challenge Justification This item was already submitted and rejected. Please see https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x99A0f0e0d9Ee776D791D2E55c215d05ccF7286fC/0x4714a3e7f7b0b6ef98f4e992a4dcd1bde6b5fc00fe0655aa50739c990c74ebcb
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve