Dispute #431

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-17 08:15 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-10-23 13:42
Arbitrable Creator
Curate 0x5dce...025c

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
0xa07f5ffd166ca3ff7567e96a0430f1496cdb470a No 2020-10-20 00:42
0xa64a17a51482f96a794c08fa3e61bb6260eeb2ca No 2020-10-20 00:44
0xf83f70e148bc6ff29bb627f97eb691f30268c7e3 No 2020-10-20 01:33

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Requester's response I can't agree with argument that my last articles for High impact list are very similar and they consist mostly of basic information about project. I mention basic information a little to tell about the project those readers who haven't heard of it before, but I try to make these articles different and describing a concrete topic. I translate some information from official Kleros sources, it's true, but I always try to add some information from myself. As for this article, I offer some new methods of applying Kleros, and I think these sections are valuable because they can give ideas for creating new dApps on platform. I support the idea of using Google Translate for jurors to understand article better. If they will come to opinion that this article doesn't meet criteria for High impact list, I could add it to Standard list. But I think this article deserves higher category in comparison with average submissions in Standard list, because it's more detailed and offers some new ideas.

Evidence #2:

Article Does Not "Significantly Expand" - Much is Just Summary, Very Little New Reading the article, ~75% of it is merely repeating usecases that already exist and are explained by Kleros staff in blogs. Summarizing is not "expanding". Furthermore, looking through the author's other articles, many are very similar, in that they consist mostly of basic Kleros information, but translated to Russian. If this really was reaching a new Russian audience, that may be fine, but look at the interactions for his other articles: many of the exact same names appear, which makes one believe that he shares it among the same group of a few people every time. If either were true, in which the article was genuinely expanding with clear effort put in, or if it reached a broad new audience, it would be fine, but neither apply. Thus, as it does not meet the interactions or "significantly expands" criteria, I believe it should be rejected. I suggest the jurors download the Google Translate extension to read the article. Attached is evidence showing the same few people interacting with the article.

Evidence #3:

Addition Also, it is noticed in the guidelines for High Impact Submissions that content should be accepted if it satisfies at least one of the conditions, but not all of them. My article satisfies the criterion "Expand significantly the Kleros knowledge base” because this content describes possible directions for using Kleros in a rather detailed way that can be useful and valuable for people who want to get to know how the platform can be applied in practice. Also, I describe some new methods of applying Kleros that makes this piece of content even more useful and valuable.

Evidence #4:

Response to challenger's arguments I have tried to spread information about my articles in different ways, but not with the help of fake interactions. Not all people with profiles which are not filled are fakes, some of them are just readers. And some Medium profiles from my constant readers are people who are interested in my articles because there are no many pieces of content about Kleros regarding some topics in Russian. I give these people an opportunity to get to know about the details regarding the project in their own language. I think it is valuable because not all people among those who are interested in project are able to read in other languages except their own language. If I'd like to create fake interactions, I could pay for claps from 50 or more people in order to make my submissions suitable for one of the criteria for High Impact Submissions. But my articles have claps from 10-25 people, on average. It isn't much enough to be suspicious, taking into consideration that the number of my followers is 484, at the moment.

Evidence #5:

Challenge Justification The article has engagement from invalid Medium profiles ( see attached evidence). The submission violates the rule of having 'mainly fake interactions'. I urge the juror to reject this submission
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve