Dispute #362

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-08-22 21:37 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-09-16 20:11
Arbitrable Creator
Curate 0xa07f...470a

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
15 7 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 1 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x0c434b29b5d31d5e660b22faaef885c740a9e581 Yes 2020-08-24 16:03
0x0c434b29b5d31d5e660b22faaef885c740a9e581 Yes 2020-08-24 16:03
0xab6afa507adfac8a2c22c85716cb74156c897d4b No 2020-08-25 19:47

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
4 1 0 2
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
0x0c434b29b5d31d5e660b22faaef885c740a9e581 Pending
0x0c434b29b5d31d5e660b22faaef885c740a9e581 Pending
0x6996c784cda7a2841c3a6f579c896477586a1d9a No 2020-08-30 05:33
0x9f1175193abcc1060e3c7f940484d033a3bdcef7 Yes 2020-08-30 11:30
0xbdd7d0d0ff36a9f333846d4a149c86b51e3407ae Yes 2020-08-31 01:46
0xe5dd78c224f26e306c84a9b1aa2def30bdf15835 Yes 2020-08-28 08:23
0xf936b0f5b5a9af020801a6ee021ff0cf72028d38 Yes 2020-08-27 23:41

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
8 7 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-09-06 21:39
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-09-06 21:39
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-09-06 21:39
0x9f1175193abcc1060e3c7f940484d033a3bdcef7 Yes 2020-09-06 21:14
0x9f1175193abcc1060e3c7f940484d033a3bdcef7 Yes 2020-09-06 21:14
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-06 02:57
0xab6afa507adfac8a2c22c85716cb74156c897d4b No 2020-09-06 14:44
0xbdd7d0d0ff36a9f333846d4a149c86b51e3407ae Yes 2020-09-07 01:03
0xbdd7d0d0ff36a9f333846d4a149c86b51e3407ae Yes 2020-09-07 01:03
0xbdd7d0d0ff36a9f333846d4a149c86b51e3407ae Yes 2020-09-07 01:03
0xc0b53221a7dbcbce68441c26ea4da73266d6bc20 No 2020-09-06 22:36
0xe5dd78c224f26e306c84a9b1aa2def30bdf15835 Yes 2020-09-05 17:18
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-09-06 11:15
0xf936b0f5b5a9af020801a6ee021ff0cf72028d38 Yes 2020-09-05 02:56
0xfae184739fbaa9c796fd0a28e96aee2a295567e4 Yes 2020-09-07 00:25

Round 3

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
22 9 0 0
Round 3 Vote Casting Date
0x3085f25455b821eedcff10433fee6723d34c2426 Yes 2020-09-12 17:41
0x3085f25455b821eedcff10433fee6723d34c2426 Yes 2020-09-12 17:41
0x3085f25455b821eedcff10433fee6723d34c2426 Yes 2020-09-12 17:41
0x3085f25455b821eedcff10433fee6723d34c2426 Yes 2020-09-12 17:41
0x42c1bd0d85f6a3b04e80fade8be68b406f36d1b3 Yes 2020-09-13 02:41
0x4cb5e653404e1ca4ef4cee496f3f677483508d66 Yes 2020-09-09 19:14
0x4cb5e653404e1ca4ef4cee496f3f677483508d66 Yes 2020-09-09 19:14
0x4cb5e653404e1ca4ef4cee496f3f677483508d66 Yes 2020-09-09 19:14
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 Yes 2020-09-11 10:40
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Yes 2020-09-12 20:23
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Yes 2020-09-12 20:23
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Yes 2020-09-12 20:23
0x9bfda54a453f503d487f2f32554de73f03e24853 No 2020-09-13 08:02
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-09 19:56
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-09 19:56
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-09 19:56
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-09 19:56
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-09-09 19:56
0xa311ab5780aa036b71aac2b71163fd03ec0df59e Yes 2020-09-09 23:02
0xa311ab5780aa036b71aac2b71163fd03ec0df59e Yes 2020-09-09 23:02
0xab6afa507adfac8a2c22c85716cb74156c897d4b No 2020-09-09 19:26
0xab6afa507adfac8a2c22c85716cb74156c897d4b No 2020-09-09 19:26
0xbdd7d0d0ff36a9f333846d4a149c86b51e3407ae Yes 2020-09-12 19:17
0xe4230c0e536b704f82cb435876b4907cb1f66c13 Yes 2020-09-13 01:32
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-09-09 19:08
0xf83f70e148bc6ff29bb627f97eb691f30268c7e3 Yes 2020-09-13 00:04
0xf865067a5b9672f11af8514440d9111afd05d040 Yes 2020-09-10 00:54
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 Yes 2020-09-10 11:31
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 Yes 2020-09-10 11:31
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 Yes 2020-09-10 11:31
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 Yes 2020-09-10 11:31


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

This one should be rejected, next may be accepted. So if the submitter has gotten his funds back from the second submission, this one should be rejected and he/she can try again when this one is rejected. Agreed?

Evidence #2:

Concur I concur with 0xA311 and I admire his commitment to this case.

Evidence #3:

Let us put drama aside and consider facts Regarding this submission we have to assess 2 listing criteria points: 1- The number of views. 2- The article quality ie does it expand significantly Kleros knowledge base. The first point is straightforwardly addressed as, at the time of submission, this criteria is clearly not met. As for the second point, the article deals with multiple aspects of Kleros but, obviously, in a very superficial manner. It is not expanding significantly any of those aspects in any way which, I believe, disqualifies it for the criteria (the fact that the article is in Turkish is not enough either). The very point of this list is to spread Kleros knowledge either through high quality content or through wide sharing. At the time of submission, none of these points are met, so this submission should be refused.

Evidence #4:

Appeal I have refunded the ETH lost by the submitter from relying on the challenger's advice. This is no longer an issue. Reattached are my arguments concerning the storytelling policy requirements which I believe have been met by the submitter.

Evidence #5:

In defense of the challenger I see in the evidence of this case that there are many personal attacks against the challenger. Challengers play an important role in the Kleros ecosystem, they guard that the submissions comply with the requirements. Without challengers, there is not Kleros at this point. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but in all cases they risk their money to make this system work. So they deserve respect. Furthermore, if the submitter uploaded a story without the needed views, or uploaded a duplicated story, it is his fault, not challengers'. I do not understand why it must be accepted based in pity considerations.

Evidence #6:

0xF59E I think jurors are here to evaluate if a submission complies the rules or not. Based on the actions of each one, I am judging you have a personal issue with the challenger. This case is being judged because it doesn’t comply the requirements, in the same way others have been judged in the past. Jurors should be consistent and adhere to the jurisprudence instead of attack systematically to the challengers arguing righteousness in their actions. It is a valuable virtue to refund the submitter. There are many cases where submitter have been challenged. Maybe you can refund everyone compensating they own mistakes. But that is not the purpose of this court.

Evidence #7:

Just follow the policies What a great theater you have mounted, I congratulate you! Jurors please see the attached file.

Evidence #8:

0x470a I do not know you personally, but I am judging you based on the actions in respect to the two submissions you have challenged from the requester in question. If you frame highlighting publicly available on-chain information as an attack, which show you advised the submitter to resubmit and then challenged his second submission whilst simultaneously contradicting yourself by appealing this current case, then I am glad to be called an attacker. You also simultaneously argue the same points in favor of your own submissions whilst challenging others with the opposite argument, such as this case. Even the timelines of the cases line up, which I find either hilarious or worrisome. I have personally refunded the submitter his ETH deposit that you dishonorably took from him: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x73c362d9dbd626cbefe56104e17b2cbbea77d319d299f8a1cbc6f6258bcbff83 Virtute duce comite fortuna

Evidence #9:

Policies and Jurisprudence You can say what you want about me and my intentions and that's subjective. You don't know me and you just want to win the case by attacking me and that speaks of your suitability, not mine. This person whom you attack so much has challenged items even knowing that he was losing money due to the high cost of gas (such as cases 348 and 349 to name a few) to make the lists as faithful as possible to the policies . Don't worry, I'm prepared to continue receiving your many grievances. One more thing , the defense that you have raised paradoxically is equal to the case 364, this case was rejected because the only thing that was considered was that it didn't gather the necessary views. This case didn't meet either that or any requirement, no matter how much they have tried to confuse the jurors over and over again.

Evidence #10:

0x470a You are correct in that this case is not judging your intentions; please see my evidence in PDF format submitted Thu, 10 Sep where I put forth the argument that the policies for submission have indeed been followed and met by the original submission. Despite the case not judging your intentions, I think the conduct you have demonstrated in this case as well as the other related case submitted by the original requester is important to highlight. You have materially benefited from misrepresenting the original submitter and that, in my opinion, is inequitable. This is of course a court where subjective matters are considered, if we were not to take into account tort and instead only consider purely binary objective issues, then there would be no need for this platform and a smart contract could conclude cases without the need for any human element to cases. I believe that the requester suffered an injustice due to misrepresentation by the challenger who has materially benefited from said misrepresentation.

Evidence #11:

Just follow the policies You want to accept an item because you feel sorry for the submitter or because the item complies with the policies? Neither this or the other submission met the high impact criteria, for different reasons. Of course I'd encouraged the submitter to resubmit the item, but my intentions were just educationals, and if you don't belive me, that's not a thing that the jurors has to judge in this case. It's not my fault that the submitter hurries to submit again the item and don't read ALL the points in the policies. Each story submited it's analyzed and if not met the criteria it's challenged by me or any other people, is so simple like that. If you want to defend your case just attacking the challenger maybe it's because dont has arguments to defend the item

Evidence #12:

0x470a You challenged the original submission on 22nd August, and then encouraged the submitter to make a new submission on the 23rd August, which he did. You then challenged the second submission on the 24th August on the basis that this case was still open, which was rejected on 2nd September. You then appealed the ruling in this case on the 9th September, already a week after the second submission was rejected. If your reasoning in the other case, was that you wanted current case to finish before allowing the submitter to submit again on the basis he now has 500 views (which is not an objective requirement in the first place), why then appeal this case after the other had been rejected and after the submitter had already achieved 500 views? You seriously expect the submitter to not only have a second submission rejected, but then also to have his original case rejected and then to have to submit a THIRD submission because of some imaginary requirement imposed by you? How much ETH do you want people to spend?

Evidence #13:

Just follow the policies The submitter uploaded a story that at the time of doing so did not have the requested requirements to be considered as High Impact. As juror, I encourage him to submit again once the story meets the requirements. However, I am not responsible if the submitter uploaded the same story again while the first one was in dispute. Rules are clear, all submission should not be accepted if: “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.” Please do not misrepresent the facts by accusing me of dishonorable attitudes or hidden intentions.

Evidence #14:

Shameful Display from 0x470a Thank you for pointing out that second submission 0x4853. It seems that juror 0x470a has been playing some seriously underhand tactics in this court. See below where he suggests that the submitter of Case 362 resubmit the submission on the basis that his arbitrary 500 view objective requirement has been met (23 Aug 2020 22:38 UTC). The second submission was then made at Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:56:08 GMT by the submitter in this case, and then promptly challenged by juror 0x470a! That is disgraceful. If juror 0x470a has any form of honor, then it would be equitable for him to refund the ETH he harvested from the second submission.

Evidence #15:

Thoughts from a juror As a juror in this appeal round which has never looked at it before now: -If we look at the views, this is to be rejected without a doubt, as it idn't have the necessary number at the time of submission. -Regarding the high impact, I'm still unsure. I translated it using google translate, and I knew everything before of course. I see that this submission may increase the kleros knowledge, but I cant really see it increasing it _significantly_. Thats my thought on this. -So to my last question: Why did the second submission for this article get rejected ?(https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x99A0f0e0d9Ee776D791D2E55c215d05ccF7286fC/0x7754af4e20d36dbbea903711aafeed78641134f797210501f527cffe5d04fbb7) The second submission should be accepted, and this one should be rejected in my opinion. Thats too late anyway, and I'm leaning against a no on this one. I feel kinda bad for the submitter though.

Evidence #16:

Evidence Dear jurors, please see the attached document for your consideration.

Evidence #17:

Evidence Please see attachment media. Here is the telegram chat URL: https://t.me/klerosturkey/1158

Evidence #18:

Dear 0x4cb5...8d66 First, as a challenger I didn't fund this round, someone did it before I could do it. Secondly, it's very important to reach the policies before the submission, if not, someone can submit an item which not cumply with the policies and nobody will challenge it becausse MAYBE the item will reach the policies AFTER the submission time. This item should NOT be accepted into this list because at the submission time has NOT reached the views needed as it's said in the policies and this article did not expand the kleros knowledge.

Evidence #19:

Vote NO - Not enough views at the time of submission What counts are the evidence at the time of submission and as acknowledged by the submitter himself, this article did not have 500 views at that time. Hence it does not comply with the policy. Vote NO

Evidence #20:

high impact article is high impact content for growing a turkish kleros community and has the viewership requirement. because the article expand the knowledge of kleros for turkish speakers it must be accepted based on impact, but it has got the viewership of 500+ readers too. jurors dont get yourself manipulated by the challenger who has appealed the yes ruling many times with no new evidence. you can read this court listing rules and see for your self there is no rule saying the views must be prior to submission, and challenger has not refute that this is high impact content

Evidence #21:

Submission does not qualify listing rules Let's review the facts: At submission time, it has been shown by challenger that the submission was not qualifying the "500 views" criteria. So jurors has to be coherent with listing rules and this submission should be refused. Submitter has to submit again and should be more careful regarding listing criteria next time.

Evidence #22:

Summary Please see the attached document.

Evidence #23:

0x0C434B29b5D31d5E660B22FAAef885c740a9E581 If you intend to vote "No," do so within the next two hours.

Evidence #24:

Evidences are to be considered as of the time the case is submitted And at that time there were not 500 views. Considering new evidences occurring at a later time would invalidate the all Kleros system. For instance one could never challenge a case with certainty as a new evidence could pop up from nowhere later on...

Evidence #25:

No, Don't Add It It is indeed true that at the time of submission, this article had less than 500 views, and thus it did not meet the criteria for the Kleros Storytelling - High Impact list.

Evidence #26:

Dear Submitter Dear Submitter, the date it's very important for the case, because the challenge was BEFORE you reach the 500 views. This dispute has to be analyzed at that date, not with the news of the day after. You was very ansious and submit the item before that goal. If you had waited a day or two to submit the article, reaching the 500 views, never would have been challenged for that reason.

Evidence #27:

Doesn't Matter Firstly i am still learning many things in these challanged sumbissions. I thought this was impossible but jurors surprised me. And i checked out the rules again but there is not any exact date about min 500 read rule. So you challenged and i submitted the proof. ➤ Has a significant audience on the platform it is posted. Accept: An article has been read by at least 500 times. Did my article read at least 500 times? You said : nope, please don't add it And i released my proof. This case is not about my second submission. But my 2nd submission is totally about this case. I submitted this one firstly so this submission will decided according to itself and other submission will decided according to this submission too.

Evidence #28:

Evidence Dear Jurors, please read the evidence sent before and observe the submitter acceptance of his mistake. After reading that, is obvious that the vote has to be done for the No, do not add it. Even more, the submitter resubmit the same story (https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x99A0f0e0d9Ee776D791D2E55c215d05ccF7286fC/0x7754af4e20d36dbbea903711aafeed78641134f797210501f527cffe5d04fbb7) and was challenged because he don’t wait until the end of this case. In that case he wrote about this case and in his own words “There are not any possibility to accepting on my first submission”.

Evidence #29:

Right Unfortunately you are right. I missed out that and submitting again with proof

Evidence #30:

At the submission time... At the submission time (21 Aug 2020 12:28:40 GMT), what matter for this case, this article has NOT 500 views, as the submitter has shown in the evidence presented and I had shown in the last evidence. This item has no new information, or share experiences of the use of the different dApps, just small definitions of each one, information that can be easily found in the kleros website or blog. Now, that the item have reach the 500 views, the item could be resubmitted to this list.

Evidence #31:

Google Analytics Thanks for the clarification. I attached Google Anayltics Datas. Please examine. There are over 1000 words and i worked hard and created totally unique article.

Evidence #32:

Challenge Justification The article does not significantly expand the knowledge about kleros and does not have 500 views. These are the only two points of the policies where we could locate it and it does not comply with them. This item should be uploaded in the standard impact list. The platform where it's posted has a lot of viewers, as presented in the evidence before this challenge, but this article does not have them.

Evidence #33:

For Your Information Here is the "kriptokoin.com" website traffic statistics from Alexa: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kriptokoin.com
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve