Dispute #360

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-08-20 22:24 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-09-13 09:42
Arbitrable Creator
Curate

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 13 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-08-25 04:19
No 2020-08-22 16:49
No 2020-08-22 22:17

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
4 3 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-08-29 15:50
Yes 2020-08-29 15:50
No 2020-08-25 23:27
No 2020-08-27 14:32
No 2020-08-28 23:14
Yes 2020-08-26 01:16
Yes 2020-08-26 01:16

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 11 0 2
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-09-03 04:34
No 2020-09-04 07:34
No 2020-09-04 05:15
Pending
Pending
Yes 2020-09-02 21:08
Yes 2020-09-02 21:08
No 2020-08-31 15:23
No 2020-08-31 15:23
No 2020-08-31 15:23
No 2020-09-04 07:30
No 2020-09-04 07:30
No 2020-09-04 07:30
No 2020-09-04 08:11
No 2020-09-04 08:11

Round 3

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
20 10 0 1
Round 3 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-09-08 22:06
Yes 2020-09-09 08:46
No 2020-09-07 20:56
Yes 2020-09-06 14:55
Yes 2020-09-07 07:49
Yes 2020-09-07 07:49
Pending
No 2020-09-08 02:14
Yes 2020-09-06 21:14
Yes 2020-09-06 21:14
No 2020-09-06 11:28
No 2020-09-06 11:28
No 2020-09-06 11:28
Yes 2020-09-09 20:36
Yes 2020-09-09 20:36
Yes 2020-09-09 20:36
Yes 2020-09-09 20:36
Yes 2020-09-09 20:36
No 2020-09-08 16:45
No 2020-09-08 16:45
No 2020-09-08 16:45
Yes 2020-09-06 11:40
No 2020-09-06 04:16
Yes 2020-09-06 22:33
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25
Yes 2020-09-06 22:25

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

response to 0x9bfD...4853 submission had enough views to fill the 2nd condition of having a significant audience. look at the first evidence posted by submitter with attachment based on the high quality of the art itself as well as this broad audience I vote yes accept. under later rounds it got upto 50 re tweet which supports impact even tho it was not there on submission other conditions were on submission my feeling is NO side took the 50 re tweet example to literal. I would vote yes for high quality art even without re tweets if it had no violations of reject policy

Evidence #2:

Third party asking questions. Could the jurors who accepted this give me the reason for it? Was iit one the basis of the views of the basis of the high impact criteria? I'm trying to figure out the presedence which may be created here. I'm also wondering how the jurors look at the "high impact" criteria, as I believe this may be the reason why jurors were accepting it in this round.

Evidence #3:

Yes, Add It In light of the most recent evidence submitted, and despite my previous comments, I am compelled to vote Yes in this case. In the future, it is my opinion that engagements should be used as a key metric by which tweets are judged.

Evidence #4:

Tweet Analytics By every metric this submission should be accepted as High Impact, per the attached evidence.

Evidence #5:

No, Don't Add It The 'evidence' included with the previous submission is little more than a simple appeal to emotion. This submission did not meet the acceptance criteria of the High Impact list at the time of submission, and because some jurors voted on that basis—as jurors should—the verdict should be No. Only as of today did the tweet in question reach 45 cumulative retweets, and at least some of the retweets are from obviously fake accounts. Furthermore, at least two of the 5 retweets with quotes are from the same account. I do believe that this submission increased awareness of Kleros, but I do not believe that it qualified for the High Impact list. The amount of evidence tampering and gaslighting in the evidence submissions is disgraceful. The attached image includes an example of what I believe is an attempt to inflate the number of retweets purportedly received by the submitter.

Evidence #6:

Accept This Submission Please read the attached evidence in favor of the Submitter.

Evidence #7:

Dispute at Submission Time Dear Jurors, It's very important for the Kleros System that we need to judge a case AT THE SUBMISSION TIME. In this case, the same submitter in his second evidence has shown the tweet analytics, where he has not reached the 50 rt that he claims, neither he reach the 500 engagement in his tweet. And this is very important for this list, and for the Kleros system. If this is judged for what we can see after the submission time, nobody would challenge any submission. I can submit a tweet with 0 rt, but nobody would challenge it because a month after maybe I could reach the needed shares. But it's interesting to see how the submitter and the people supporting him are trying to confuse the jury showing that NOW they have the RT needed. It's because they knew that was a condition needed at the submission time?

Evidence #8:

Clear NO. Just 2 jurors missing to close voting. 0xbDd7...07Ae, i don't know what you mean with consensus. Maybe you don’t see that there are 25 votes casted. Check on klerosboard.com/dispute , because kleroscan is delayed. (maybe it's because of this, please don't misunderstood me) Dear 0x8DcA...10d9, why do you purposely omit the fact that those metrics are from now, and not from the moment the submitter started this request?

Evidence #9:

Accept: High Quality Submission with >50 Retweets. For those in confusion, this submission is more than qualified to be accepted into the High Quality / High Impact storytelling list. 1. It is of HIGH QUALITY and reflects effort made in creating. (The artist has drawn portraits of two Kleros founders. This takes significant effort and skill). In the past, other artworks have been added to High Quality/High Impact. 2. It is widely distributed on Twitter and shared across social media channels. (59 shares in total by users). 50 Retweets on https://twitter.com/Sinecurist0/status/1295367808994496512 9 (Extra) Retweets on Federico's post https://twitter.com/federicoast/status/1295368689827622913 3. It complies with more conditions than only the hyperfocused "Retweet" example metric by the challenger. Right now, the challengers are straw-manning this to conceal the truth. To the jurors who are currently in this case: please remain calm. Be reminded that your votes only have to be coherent with the outcome of the LAST round. Vote wisely.

Evidence #10:

Come on jurors, this item don't belongs to the high impact list I agree with 0xbDd7...07Ae, this is a clear NO. If we are accepting this item, why don't promoting almost all what is in the standard list to the high impact one? All there is practically same order content, with less than 50 rt. And all would deserve same treatment.

Evidence #11:

No, Don't Add It This is a clear No. The person beneath me who 'rebutted' my previous submission is incompetent at best or intentionally deceitful at worst. I was obligated to vote contrary to my opinion in a previous ruling and I submitted the evidence he references prior to the jury reaching consensus. Moreover, I use the same account to both vote and submit evidence, unlike other people here who are clearly using sock puppets in an effort to sway the jury. In this case, the rules are clear and I concur with the challenger; this submission does NOT belong on the High Impact list and should be rejected. I intend to vote No, subject to the consensus of the rest of the jury.

Evidence #12:

Jurors, please just stayed focused. 16RT at submission time. Jurors, please, stay focused. This publication was only 16RT at submission time , Aug 19th 25RT when ..430b posted evidence , Aug 31th. 38RT (43 if you add the RT with comment) , September 7th (28 days after submission) Even if you play the desperately move of adding Federico’s tweet’s RTs, it’s 16 + 9 (and we don’t know wich was the real number on Aug 19th) = 25RT.

Evidence #13:

Warning Fake Evidence and Manipulation The previous evidence posts by 0xf83f...c7e3 and 0xda8C...1fD2 are highly manipulative and even contain false information. 1. The meme (yes, the Policy states memes are valid submissions to high impact) has been shared by more than 50 people on Twitter (> 50 Retweets). 43 RT: https://twitter.com/Sinecurist0/status/1295367808994496512 9 RT: https://twitter.com/federicoast/status/1295368689827622913 2. As a last and desperate resort, 0xda8C is turning to juror selection. He is trying to persuade people that the voting is flawed because one juror has 7 out of 31 votes (22%). However, this juror was not drawn in the previous round. Instead, two rejecting jurors (including the Challenger) cumulatively owned 40% of the votes there. This information has been selectively left out. Note that supporters of the submission never turned to these lowly tactics in the evidence section. Instead, we focused on the content and truths surrounding the submission, not the activity of other jurors.

Evidence #14:

Smart Jurors Dear jurors: please have into account that previous round ended 11-2 in favor of NOT accpeting the meme in the high impact list. At this moment you can see that the current round is 12-4 in favor of the submitter. However 10 out of the twelve votes are issued by three jurors supporting the yes side in the previous round, one of them with 7 votes. Yes, one person have 7 votes in this round. Do not let yourself be threatened by a juror with so many votes. Money should not resolve what is fair. I know that jurors are smarter than that and they will follow the evidences. The story do not fulfill any of the requierements to be in the list. That's all.

Evidence #15:

Dont add a meme that still do not reach 50 rt (yes, it still do not reach them) Curated lists are a serious thing. Are we admitting a meme, and intervened picture, which not explain almost anything about what Kleros is, what Kleros is intended for, etc, in a High Impact Lists? Are we accepting a submission in twitter, that almost a month after being uploaded, did not reached 50 rt? 50 rt dear jurors, not a million rts. What is the real impact of a meme that do not explain anything nor is shared by more than a few people, all of them probably already involved in Kleros? How we are going to rule when the items in the list really change the lives of the people consulting it? Let’s make a reliable application. It is our responsibility.

Evidence #16:

Last Rebuttal to the Challenger I recite the evidence of 0x9456: “In the policy, there is no rule that states certain metrics must be attained before submitting your work. There is certainly no rule that forces the submitter to resubmit after attaining certain metrics.” Your last straw is the fact that these metrics should be attained before submitting the content. However, this is your own subjective opinion. The guiding metrics have been reached easily with the support of the community. Also, the submission is required to be of high quality and reflect effort made in its creation. This was always the case, from the day of submission. Lastly, it is also required to be distributed to a large audience, this is also in effect now. I guess the light has been shone on this case. Let’s add it to the Storytelling Campaign and reward creative community members for contributing their time and effort to spread Kleros’ awareness. Let’s not scare them away with this recent Court harassment any longer.

Evidence #17:

Rebuttal 0x9456...49E1 Please see attached evidence

Evidence #18:

Dear Challenger You fail to present us with a defence for the evidence of 0x9f11 and 0x8DcA and have chosen to ignore them instead. In the policy, there is no rule that states certain metrics must be attained before submitting your work. There is certainly no rule that forces the submitter to resubmit after attaining certain metrics. You have chosen one example metric and used it as a last resort throughout the whole case - trying to enforce it as a hard rule. I did not have the intention to attack Juror 0xbDd7. Instead, I warned other Jurors about his adversarial behaviour in case 362. The content has to be HIGH QUALITY or high impact. It must reflect EFFORT made in creating, as well as the effect in distributing said content. It must be widely shared across social networks (Twitter, Discord, Telegram) and have a significant audience (53 RTs, 800+ engagements, 5500+ impressions) I believe someone hurried. It wasn't the Artist.

Evidence #19:

Dear 0x9456...49E1 First: if the submission NOW has reached 52 RT, it must be submitted NOW, in a new, clean submission. So, this one must be rejected, as we always said. Second: why are you attacking other jurors? If juror 07Ae voted differently in other case it could be because is just "another case" with different considerations to care of. Is 362 a meme or a tweet? Not. There are no dark conspirations, nor dangerours jurors or challengers here. Instead, I believe that the submitter hurried in the submission .

Evidence #20:

Rebuttal 0xbDd7...07Ae The submission does meet the criteria of the High Impact List. At this moment 53 people have shared this tweet on their Twitter feed. The engagement (note, not impressions) are over 700. The latest evidence does not talk about likes or impressions in any way. You are using strawmen and ignoring important statements. To all jurors who are currently doubting the credibility of his evidence, please note that this person has posted the exact "No, don't add it" evidence to case 362. BUT IN FACT, he instead voted to add it. He is a danger this this court and is probably manipulating juror sentiment to gain financially. Source: https://court.kleros.io/cases/362 Please, also note that this juror has 3 votes in the current round. If he votes no, there will be a possibility to appeal and still come to a fair ruling of this case.

Evidence #21:

No, Don't Add It This submission didn't meet the criteria of the High Impact list at the time of submission and it still doesn't. A 'like' on Twitter is not equivalent to a retweet and 'impressions' are almost totally irrelevant.

Evidence #22:

Towards an Acceptance of the Submission 1. The acceptance conditions are the (subjective) rules. The “Accept/Reject” criteria in italic listed below are exemplary guidelines to help people judge cases more objectively. 2. Even if we would enforce these criteria as hard rules, this submission would STILL comply with the policy – unironically. Challenging jurors have been cherrypicking one of these Accept criteria, namely the “Meme is shared by at least 50 users” one. However, there is also the “Has a significant audience” condition, which they are willfully ignoring! This means that the submitter has been complying with the Policy since day one and his submission’s engagement has been growing and blowing challengers out of the water ever since. The challenger has locked himself in a financial incentive as a (5-time!) juror to win this case, starting from round 0. Who are we really fooling when we reject this submission? In the end, we will be fooled by Kleros’ fair judgement. I’m not taking any risks and accepting the submission.

Evidence #23:

This Qualifies as a High Impact Submission There are a lot of misconceptions and even false evidence floating around in this case. First, 0x06F6...CD1a claims one can not count the Retweets on another’s person cite of the content. However, the Acceptance guide states: “An article, meme, or tweet is shared by at least 50 users”. The meme has more than 50 cumulative retweets, thus is shared by 50 users on their personal Twitter feed. Should we not encourage people to cite the meme and share it with their network? He even has the audacity to state “Sadly, it was RTweeted with comment, which makes it a new tweet” > For someone who is following the policy this closely, this is a strange self-enforced rule and it is nowhere to be found in the policy. Secondly, the policy shares acceptance conditions first and then attempts to clarify them with an 'Accept' example. These examples are also used below for rejection conditions. They are meant to enlighten us on qualitative indicators with an order of magnitude for statistics. It's a confident YES.

Evidence #24:

Not a High Impact Publication Please read the attached file.

Evidence #25:

Let's be serious, reject this item in the present form I appeal to the jurors to be cautious and not be fooled by the words of who sent last evidence, which attributes himself the representation of the community as a whole. Furthermore, he tries to discredit the challenger, mentioning a “different set of incentives”. What could they be? Maybe the accuser is projecting his own intentions onto the challenger. The challenger identified an item not fulfilling the requirements and challenged it. That’s all. As the sender of that evidence correctly states, the submission did not have the condition(50RT) to be accepted at the time of submission. It is not an article that significantly expand the knowledge of Kleros. Are we accepting a submission because we like it, or because it fulfills the requirements? This list is nearly an exercise, but what will we do when the list involves serious things? Let’s be serious. Let’s make this item enter the list when it fulfill the requirements. The submitter should send it in a new submission with 50RT. Let’s enforce the rules.

Evidence #26:

A fair trial for our Community’s new artist This trial is becoming very heated and very subjective. This evidence is an attempt to shine a light on the objective truths that surround this case. First, it is true that the submitted visual did not have a metric of 50 retweets by the time it was submitted to the list. However, the policy’s ‘Accept’ requirements are mere example guidelines – not set in stone. Multiple Kleros team members who have forged the policy have confirmed the subjective nature of this document. The fact that this submission got heavy support from the community to reach the “requirements” that the Rejecter so cares about, is another reason for jurors to accept this case. This is a beautiful subjective indicator of what a High Impact submission looks like. You cannot find this in the policy, but we, the community, understand it intuitively. Lastly, I advise all jurors to be cautious with the influence of the challenger. He might have a different set of incentives. Our Community's new artist deserves a fair trial. VOTE YES.

Evidence #27:

Argument in Support of Submitter Please read the attached evidence: summarizing the case thus far and arguing in favor of the Submitter.

Evidence #28:

Likes are not Shares In twitter, a like is a like, and a retweet is a share. Even more, the common behavior of the users who retweet is to like it too. So, we can not add the likes and the retweets, like the last party argue. The parties supporting the submitter are searching the needle in the haystack, because they know his item don't met the criteria at the submission time. Maybe now, after promoting the image in the different groups of kleros (telegram, discord, etc), the tweet reach the 50 rt and met the criteria. Then, you can resubmit the item to this list. I encourage the jury to reject this items. It's very clear to me this item, at the submission time, does not met the criteria.

Evidence #29:

Submission seems to qualify listing rules At the time of submission, submitter showed that the tweet was liked 35 times and retweeted 16 times which makes it shared 51 times by users: Thus, it looks to me that this submission meets the listing criteria (listing criteria doesn't require 50 retweets but 50 shares, and a like is a share afaik). So, unless there are more evidence to be shown, this submission should be accepted.

Evidence #30:

This item should nod te admitted because admitting it could broke the HI list When this item was submitted it DID NOT HAVE the number or RTs required to be admitted in the high impact list. The submitter has been very active in the social networks in order to reach that number of engagements AFTER the item was submitted. Now that him reached it, he appealed the case. This is not fair play, and the item SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED because in that case the jurisprudence will broke the system in the following way: someone can submit whatever related with Kleros without the needed RTs, and it will not be challengued because if it obtain the number of rt after submitting, the challenguer will lose his money. The result is a lot of insignificant items entering the high impact list, which will transform the list in a garbage one, and the Kleros Cooperative giving away money for nothing. See attached evidence.

Evidence #31:

51 Retweets, 783 Engagements, 5,136 Impressions The submission should be accepted into the High Impact Storytelling registry for fulfilling two (2) of the submission requirements outlined below: 1.) The submission has been shared 50 times on social media. Per the below tweets, the image was retweeted 42 times on the main post and 9 additional times on Federico Ast's post, meeting the threshold of 50 required shares. https://twitter.com/Sinecurist0/status/1295367808994496512?s=20 https://twitter.com/federicoast/status/1295368689827622913?s=20 2). The submission has 783 engagements and 5,136 impressions, garnering it a significant audience on the platform it was posted. In the submission guidelines the example was an article with 500 views, this submission far surpasses that example requirement. Although meeting only one (1) submission requirement is needed to be accepted into the Kleros High Impact Storytelling registry, this submission meets two (2) requirements and as such should without a doubt be accepted into the High Impact Storytelling registry.

Evidence #32:

Twitter Engagements The submitter argues that the image has reached a significant audience on the platform, per the submission requirements. In the example an article with 500 views counts as a significant audience. Per the included evidence the Tweet has 513 engagements and over 3,800 impressions. The challenger argues that impressions do not count as views, but they cannot deny that 513 tweet engagements do count and are greater than the example in the Submission Requirements. Due to having greater than 500 engagements on Twitter, I argue for this submission to be accepted into Kleros Storytelling on the basis of having a significant audience on the platform it was posted.

Evidence #33:

Not eligible for high impact The submitter arguments that not a single tweet from the @kleros_io account in 2020 has reached 50 rt, so they would not count for the High Impact List. Exactly, he is right, those tweets are not eligible for high impact. There is a reason behind the 50rt rule enforced by Kleros itself: It’s hard to get 50 rt but not impossible. That’s the reason why there is a High Impact list and a Standard impact one. I produced several twitter threads that reached the 50rt. The Kleros Community example is much more than a tweet, because the map was constructed by the cooperation of more than 150 people who are part of it. It is a tool that shows the global distribution of Kleros community and was embeded in the official website of the kleros project (kleros.io/community) and third party tools (klerosboard.com/kleros-map) both with hundreds of views every day. Furthermore, the map was the first in its class, i.e. the first map of Kleros community ever made. Are you comparing the Map with an Intervened picture? Really?

Evidence #34:

Rebuttal In Support of Submitter Please read the attached rebuttal in support of this piece being accepted.

Evidence #35:

Standard Impact Please see how a simple tweet with only a few likes can have the views that the submitter and his/her supporter deems necessary. As jurors we have to take care about the items that will be accepted in the high impact list. In the case of tweets and social media content the example in the rules are clear: it has to be shared at least 50 times. Please look at the attached document

Evidence #36:

Impressions in tweeter are not what they seems to be Jurors must have into account what is explained in the following post: https://medium.com/digital-vault/whats-a-twitter-impression-worth-d7be0e1ab262 I cite the first paragraph: "Twitter impressions are the number of times a tweet shows up in somebody’s timeline. That means every time it’s served up, it counts as an impression. Sure, you need impressions for someone to see your tweet, but an impression doesn’t mean it was actually seen." In summary, the views that the submitter presents doesn't mean that the tweet was actually seen. That is the reason why I believe that views should not count in the case of tweets to be included in the High Impact List. The metric is flawed.

Evidence #37:

Easily reach 500 views on twitter I'm a 3rd party, but with some financial interest because I'd two items approved for the rewards of August in this list. I think that we have to be careful as Jurors and community members about this case of the HI list. I like the image of the tweet, but I think this item has to be REJECTED in the high impact list, because it has not reached the criteria of 50 RT. If this item is approved to be part of the list, several media content with a few RT but 501 views (can be easily achieved in social media) will want to be added to the list using this case as jurisprudence because they have more than 500 views. Even more, I have some tweets about Kleros with 20 RT and 1500 views, and don't think they are high impact, because they haven’t reached 50 rt. Again, it’s easily to have more than 500 views in social media if you have a few rt. For these reasons I encourage the jurors to reject this item, and the submitter to add this item to the Standard to be rewarded, because he/she deserves it.

Evidence #38:

a matter of rules "In this case, the tweet (or the meme if you want) clearly is not an article." The listing guidelines state that the items in italics are examples. An article is an example of one type of item that could be submitted. The CONDITION is that it have a significant audience, the EXAMPLE is that it could be an article with 500 views. Just because it is an art piece instead of an article does not mean that this entire condition should be ignored. The listing rules say if any one of these conditions is met, it should be accepted. The example says 500 readers on an article. I argue that 3000+ viewers on this art is significant. Exactly as you say - it is a matter of rules, and I am again asserting that the challenger's side is misinterpreting them.

Evidence #39:

Item should be rejected because it does not fill the requirements Third party affirmation regarding that the tweet should be accepted based in the number of views is wrong, in my opinion. Rules clearly establish that an article, meme or tweet should be shared at least 50 times for being accepted. And that an article should be red at least 500 times or significantly expand the Kleros knowledge base. In this case, the tweet (or the meme if you want) clearly is not an article. It is beautiful, but clearly does not expand the Kleros knowledge base. So, the only way to be admitted is to obtain 50+ shares. I personally do not like the occurrence of the challenger about Van Gogh and so on, but this is not a matter of words, it is a matter of rules.

Evidence #40:

typo correction: I am neither the challenger nor the submitter, but I support the SUBMITTER's submission based off the evidence

Evidence #41:

accept submissions with a significant audience The challenger is reading the evidence wrong. I am a third party who has a submission already accepted. I am neither the challenger nor the submitter, but I support the challenger's submission based off the evidence. If the submitter is accepted I personally lose out. Just as the challenger, who was also a juror on round 1, would. The criteria attached has been fulfilled by this submission. This should be accepted. I see the jurisprudence example, and if it truly had 11,000 views then it should have too been accepted. I would ask the jury to review the attached highlighted criteria and consider whether this is a significant audience. I find it strange that the challenger shifted tactics to Belittling the submitter. Not very becoming.

Evidence #42:

Like Van Gogh Dear submitter I had never said that the community does not have to work spreading the Kleros project, even more, as you said, I have several submissions in this list. Your submission is good, but it does not have had enough difussion to be in the high impact list. You are encouraged to create unique art and obtain 50+ retweets before submission to de list. It is easy. If not, submit it to the Standard List. I'm sorry that people don't appreciate your art ... maybe you're misunderstood, like Van Gogh

Evidence #43:

Rebuttal The challenger’s assertion that this submission does not qualify for High Impact Storytelling is unsupported by the facts and the spirit of the High Impact Storytelling Submission Guidelines. The submission is a hand-drawn image depicting the Kleros Team at the School of Athens. The tweet containing the image has been viewed over 3,000 times, liked collectively 103 times. Unlike the tweet the challenger linked above, which was a text-based tweet offering appreciation for Kleros, the submission in question is an artwork which is visually striking and has the potential to generate intrigue from users who browse #blockchian, #ethereum and #crypto thereby benefiting the Kleros network with exposure. If we are to set the precedent that members of the Kleros Community should not attempt to create unique art because they will not be considered for High Impact Storytelling despite having thousands of views, then what motivation is there to spend the time and effort on such endeavors in the future?

Evidence #44:

Jurisprudence Dear submitter, there is jurisprudence about a twitt which don't reach the 50 rt and was rejected, see the case 286 (https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x99A0f0e0d9Ee776D791D2E55c215d05ccF7286fC/0xa3f2ec7a140e4a14894a289297da0705fbdf2aa7ef32157134b5b01222ec9965 ) with more than 11k views, way more than your 3k views. The rules are clear, for social media content needs at least 50 shares. Secondly, your assumption of financial lose with this submission is completely false, do the math, because you will earn more money if the item is accepted. Thirdly, I love his humility to consider his story as a work of art. The only one who thinks this is a reward problem is you. On top of that, she becomes the martyr saying that she loses money presenting her masterpiece. Please dear submitter, don't disrespect our intelligence

Evidence #45:

Rebuttal The Challenger seems to imply that all of the criteria have to be met to have an acceptable submission. The document very clearly says to accept submissions that satisfy "at least one" of the example conditions. Clear evidence has been presented that this tweet has a significant audience. This is the second condition in the list. 3000+ views/impressions (I wonder what it is days later?) is Significant. The listing rules do not say the audience must be people who do not use Kleros and it does not say it must be an article (that is just an example). The challenger's points are irrelevant. This is a great piece of completely new art that has had a significant viewership. I move for the Jury to accept this into the list. Note: Both myself and the Challenger have submissions that were accepted for High Impact this month (Kleros the Epistemic Engine, and Juror Experience respectively). My support of this submission is at my own financial loss because if accepted it reduces my prize

Evidence #46:

Challenge Justification The tweet should not be admitted to the high impact list because it does not fulfill the required conditions. See evidence attached.

Evidence #47:

Tweet Analytics 3,151 impressions

Evidence #48:

Federico Ast Retweet https://twitter.com/federicoast/status/1295368689827622913?s=20 Retweet with 59 Likes at the time of posting.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve