Continued accusations of ad hominem and ignoring substance of arguments - leaving this in hands of jurors as requester is adding nothing but baiting me
Requester continues to make false allegations of personal attacks instead of addressing points make, and continues misappropriating the evidence to make it a comparison between numbers of sources, instead of allowing it to be honestly evaluated. You will note that requester has made 2 main arguments to show the submission should not be rejected - that it is the most commonly used logo, and that he is being personally attacked The first argument, as has already been established, holds no ground even if it was true, as the correct logo is required, not the most commonly used. Requester is mistaking (or perhaps intentionally misrepresenting) the naming policy for the logo policy. The second argument is simply not true, but regardless bears absolutely no relevance to the case, as it is not myself or requester who are on trial, but the submission. Requester further attempts to suggest that the etherscan submission is not relevant, when it is literally the most relevant source for verification in the ethereum crypto space, being where the contract, name, ticker, logo, transactions, tokenomics, etc can be verified, and only editable by the creator of the original contract. To ignore the 2 most relevant sources, etherscan and coingecko, while attempting to distract with a comparison of numbers, is nothing but a dishonest attempt to support point 1) above, which is not consistent with policy to begin with. This bad faith presentation of evidence should be enough to convince any juror that requester has nothing to contribute to this discussion and is simply trying to distract. Note that jurors tied on this vote and I did not push to fund another challenge out of sympathy for requester, even though free 0.8 eth, which would have been refunded for free if requester was able to admit to his mistake, but instead they chose to wait until the last minute to fund themselves. I note further that I did not fund the challenge defense, so I am really just working overtime here for an absent actor (mostly because of childish accusations of personal attacks which need to be addressed) as I have nothing more at stake.