Dispute #369

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-08-27 19:18 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-09-06 06:46
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-09-02 04:06
No 2020-09-02 04:06
No 2020-09-02 06:24


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Does not comply to criteria Again; At the time of submission this tweet had 10 retweets. That does not comply to the criteria. It is very easy to add retweets after a submission is challenged. A submission shoul be judged by the stats at the actual time of submission. There's significant jurisprudence about this point from earlier disputes. Else, why would challengers challenge submissions at all? I have no bias for one language or another. This is just sidetracking the discussion and does not look well on the submitter. If the submitter is so sure he/she complies to the criteria, I would like the submitter to post tweet analytics. To me this is a clear no.

Evidence #2:

The Challenger openly manipulates the opinion of the jury and calls for a false decision. 1. The Challenger is unaware of the content of my video. because it is not a native speaker, but makes the accusation that my content does not meet the High Campaign requirements. This is not the truth, but only a biased speculation of Challenger. 2. The Challenger makes assumptions about the manipulation of views, likes and retweets with no facts or evidence in hand. Which is also not true, but only the speculations and assumptions of Challenger. 3. The Challenger is biased towards me as an author. Example. The author of Kryptol was left without a well-deserved attention from Chenger. His presentation does not exactly meet the criteria of a high campaign. No hits. No hits, no retweets. But the Challenger does not notice this. All this gives me reason to think about the bias of the Challenger and the discrimination of Russian-speaking authors on its part. for more information, see attachment

Evidence #3:

Jurors pls vote no on this one. This escalated. I would like jurors to look at the actual evidence, not all the baseless personal attacks from the submitter which only is sidetracking the actual dispute. Pls note that this submissions had 10 retweets at the time of submission, then 50 then 24, them 76 at the time of me posting this.

Evidence #4:

your attitude is too biased, you can not be objective. I could have abstained if it was not for your views on my introduction. All evidence of your bias has been presented. You have no evidence, only false assumptions. With them you try to manipulate and mislead the opinion of the jury. Another fact that testifies to your bias and discrimination is Cryptola's representation. It clearly doesn't meet High Impact requirements, but you stubbornly miss it. Which once again proves what I've said about your bias and discrimination. Dear Jurors, please pay attention to this Challenger and carefully check his words for any lies.

Evidence #5:

views, retweets and likes manipulation. Pls vote no. I would like to make jurors aware how the submitter goes directly to ad hominem attack. The views have nothing to do with race, language and anything related to this. My statement is that the length and form of the video, whatever language, doesnt meet the criteria of _significantly_ expanding the Kleros knowledge base. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the video still has 1,4k views after several hours, exactly the same number as after 15 minutes. That is very fishy. Lastly, originally this tweet had 10 retweets, then it had 50, now it has 24 retweets. To me, this is obvious signs of manipulation. I would ask the submitter to refrain from personal attacks. All jurors should vote NO in this dispute.

Evidence #6:

All conditions of submission have been met. All conditions of submission have been met. You cannot judge whether or not you are not a native speaker. Many views - a large audience. Few hits - bad for you. Many hits are bad for you too. Let's face it - you are biased towards the representatives of the Russian-speaking community. Challenger openly calls for a vote against my representation - I see signs of violation of community principles, bias and discrimination on the basis of language.

Evidence #7:

Challenge Justification Look at the evidence file

Evidence #8:

Does not comply to criteria See attached file. This submissions should be rejected.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve