Dispute #467

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-01 10:01 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-17 01:42
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 1 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 1 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-06 12:39
No 2020-11-03 14:13

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 0 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-13 06:23
Yes 2020-11-12 22:37
Yes 2020-11-12 20:06
Yes 2020-11-10 10:26
Yes 2020-11-12 13:37
Yes 2020-11-12 13:37
Yes 2020-11-13 13:27


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Requester is toxic and manipulative - you will be ignored from now on and the already sufficient evidence will be prepared and presented for next round jury. Hi Requester, I'm sorry you feel attack and that your feelings are hurt by arguments against your incorrect position. Clearly, jurors do in fact fall for nonsense given all you had to do to convince them was repeat your baseless allegations of being personally attacked and that no argument has been presented, contrary to the reality of the evidence section. Your tactic of continuing to pat yourself on the back and posing as the protagonist will only embarasss you upon the next appeal, for which I will prepare a document summarizing the evidence section and elaborately demonstrating the arguments presented, rather than engaging in your pointless personal accusations and allegations of "ad hominem" and lying, where not a single instance of such has come from me, and many from you. Jury voting yes now for coherence, I hope you understand that jury coherence is based on the final result, not the result of the round, so you are doing nothing but fattening to pot for the next round jurors.

Evidence #2:

Advise for the challenger (0xf567) Your way of reasoning is annoying, to say the least. It's not only working on my nerves, as I have heard other people complain about your style of arguing. You are using nasty tactics, namely: * Using fallacies; * Argumentum ad hominem; * Lying; * Evasion of real discussion; * Claiming you proved something, while you didn't; * Claiming things, which are not true; * And the list goes on. Overall, you are, in a nasty war, trying to sway the jury members, instead of presenting arguments with actually substance. I advise you to change this, as it doesn't benefit the ecosystem. Meanwhile, it also doesn't benefit yourself, as is seems that Kleros jurors do no easily fall for such atrocious ways of arguing. In the end, it will make you lose more cases than win. I'm glad that the jurors were able to see through all the noise in this dispute, which is another show of Kleros' resilience! Now lets enjoy the conference for the rest of the day.

Evidence #3:

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.

Evidence #4:

This challenger... The challenger keeps claiming that he already demonstrated that the black logo is not correct, but he didn't demonstrate anything. He just said: "there are two websites using another logo than the majority (10 sources) are using, so it must be incorrect"... That's just silly, and the challenger is acting in bad faith by persisting he proved something, while in fact, he didn't prove anything. Etherscan is NOT AT ALL the go to source for deciding which token symbol should be used for the T2CR. There it literally 0 reason for rejecting this submission, as I already proved that submitted logo is: 1. The most commonly used token symbol, and; 2. Dock's official token symbol Challenger's nasty way of arguing is working on my nerves. He prefers to personally attack me, instead of providing valid arguments. Acting like he proved his claims are true, while in fact, he didn't prove shit. Dear jury members, hopefully you can see past all the noise and persisting of false proofs. There is nothing wrong with this submission, and should thus be accepted in the T2CR.

Evidence #5:

Evidence? Previously submitted evidence of communication from "Dock team" offers no indicator that it is legitimate and could be fabricated. It has already been demonstrated that the black logo which has been submitted is not the correct logo and would cause confusion to anyone seeking to verify it (e.g. the purpose of using T2CR for safer uniswap usage). Until such a time when Dock team updates the logo on Etherscan, which is the only source which requires signing from the token contract in order to submit a change, it should continue to use the logo there. As logo was incorrect on this basis as demonstrated at time of submission, it should be rejected in order to preserve the integrity of the challenger system and prevent incorrect penalization.

Evidence #6:

Team confirmed token symbol is correct I had contact with the Dock team. They confirmed that the black logo, which was uploaded here, is in fact DOCK's correct token symbol. In the attachments you can find our email communication.

Evidence #7:

Most commonly used has nothing to do with it Most commonly used is irrelevant for logos and tickers, and only applies to token names. Only correctness applies. I will leave this open for anyone who wants to contribute before crowdfunding myself. Anyway, you ARE the requester, are you trying to pretend you are a neutral 3rd party funding your own appeal?

Evidence #8:

Submitted logo is Dock's most commonly used AND official token symbol I will fund the requester's side of the appeal, because the submitted image is the correct token symbol for Dock. It is both the most commonly used AND official token symbol, which is confirmed by the Dock team.

Evidence #9:

Continued false accusation Challenger appears to believe that using 1st grade PHL class words will add to his argument despite not understanding them, and that claiming proof has not been given will fool the jury into thinking this is true. Even this comment on your behaviour does not constitute an ad hominem attack, as it is a comment on your means of engagement with the discussion, and not on your person or character. Evidence has been presented and it appears neither side has more to add.

Evidence #10:

Continued ad hominem Where is any proof of the fact that the token logo is incorrect? This wasn't proved, in contrary, I proved that the most commonly used token symbol is the same as I submitted to the T2CR. In someone is ignoring provided evidence, it's you. I provided a list of 10! sources using the same token symbol as I did, while you could only come up with 2 (non-official) sources. Instead of responding to this crystal clear evidence, you AGAIN decided to personally attack me. So yeah, I am not being ridiculous and I certainly understand what "ad hominem" means. Have a good day :)

Evidence #11:

Repeated assertion does not make it a fact. Requester is being ridiculous or simply does not understand what "ad hominem" means - either way is continuing to use false equivalence to argue rather than actually addressing the points made. Requester continues to ignore the fact that the token logo is incorrect, ignoring evidence provided and insisting they are correct. Repeating points which have already made clear and refuting requester's unnecessary repeating of arguments which have been addressed is fruitless and jury is capable of basic evaluation of evidence.

Evidence #12:

Fact: submitted image is the most commonly used token symbol Argumentum ad hominem is the tactic used by the challenger. He basically only argues that I am either mistaken, I proved that my own logo is incorrect, or I am flooding irrelevant information. Looking at the facts however, we can see that the submitted token symbol is the most widely used amongst not only official sources, but also external sources like CoinMarketCap. Besides the 7 sources (see evidence from 2 Nov) I provided, which use the same logo as was submitted to the T2CR, the 8. Dock blog, 9. Dock Reddit, and 10. Dock Youtube, also use the exact same logo as was submitted here. So basically there are at least 10 relevant sources using the exact same logo as I provided, while only CoinGecko and Etherscan use another logo (note that CoinGecko and Etherscan don't use the exact same logo as each other). Furthermore, the requester argued that the submitted logo is the project logo, which is a baseless argument, without any proof backing up his false claim. Don't just blindly belief what he writes, as he is just fabricating unproven evidence to sway the jurors.

Evidence #13:

Requester has not acknowledged or refuted the explanation against his misconception nor successfully demonstrated that it is the most commonly used and official symbol for the token Requester's point has already been refuted and his latest evidence is nothing but flooding irrelevant information e.g focusing on the irrelevant shape of an irrelevant image and irrelevant links showing the project logo. Requester has not addressed the points made and has chosen to use their opportunity to deflect instead of acknowledging and explaining. It is clear even based on the screenshot submitted by requester that the black background image is the logo for Dock the project and not Dock the token - the underlying asset being listed here as confirmed by the policies. Requester's claims to the contrary regarding the alleged outdated listing and the 'officiality' of their selection are unsupported and based on nothing but their own misconceived opinion. That requester accuses me of malicious action in an innocent situation where I simply did not want to share my bookmarks bar and open tabs and which bears no support for his argument if he had paid attention to his mistake being pointed out in earlier evidence regarding token vs project is plainly ridiculous. As it is simple to illustrate the reality that requester's logo has not, and the etherscan and coingecko logo have, been in use uninterrupted for years as the most commonly used representation of the token, there is no reason to approve this request.

Evidence #14:

Submitted token symbol is the most commonly used and official token symbol 1. How can you argue that the token symbol which was submitted to the T2CR, is not the most commonly used token symbol, while literally ALL of the official Dock sources use the same token symbol as I submitted to the T2CR. Besides that, the biggest and most visited coin tracker, CoinMarketCap, also uses the same logo. As I said earlier, both Etherscan and CoinGecko use an outdated version of the Dock logo. But then still, it would only be 2 sources, against 7 sources (from which 6 are official). 2. The requester is falsely claiming that the only instance of the logo on the Dock website is not square and contradicts my claim. I attached a screenshot from the Dock website, and as you can see, the black token symbol is displayed at in the tab. The challengers (maliciously) cut this part away in his screenshot. Moreover, the black colors also are used in the project logo (displayed at the left top corner of the page and on the bottom left of the page *not visible in my screenshot though*). The logo that the requester is referring to in his evidence clearly is NOT the token symbol. This is an image about Apps built on Dock, note how the shape is similar to the shapes of IOS apps. MATH was rejected for using such a logo, as it clearly does not represent the actual token (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x19622a0b50c5406f15c5004b50e24d2b0df75219e19a5c1543c53c14fe497fc0) 3. There is no valid reason for rejecting this submission, as there is no more commonly used token symbol as was submitted to the T2CR. Moreover, this token symbol is used on all official Dock sources, as also on CoinMarketCap. This submission complies with the policy and jurisprudence, and should therefore be accepted to the T2CR.

Evidence #15:

Requester is mistaken The uploaded logo is not the logo for the token, as listed on Coingecko and Etherscan, but for the actual project. The only instance of the logo on the dock website as linked in requesters evidence and attached to this not only contradicts their claim, but is also not square. Requester comments that the coingecko/etherscan 'do not even match, one is round and one is squared', while themselves submitted evidence of similarly mismatched logos. Requesters own evidence and comments, therefore, confirm that the logo is incorrect by his own reasoning. In the absence of a clear shape and color for the logo, a transparent logo should have been uploaded. In this instance, I maintain that the blue background should have been adopted as is most consistent and most recognized, but it is sufficient to demonstrate that the current upload cannot possibly be acceptable as correct based on the standards set by the policies and by requesters own confirmation.

Evidence #16:

Submitted image is the most commonly used logo 1. CoinMarketCap (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dock/) 2. GitHub (https://github.com/docknetwork) 3. Telegram (https://t.me/dockio) 4. Twitter (https://twitter.com/docknetwork) 5. Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/dockio/) 6. Website (https://www.dock.io/) 7. DOCK docs (https://docs.dock.io/) Both Etherscan and CoinGecko use an outdated version of the Dock token symbol, and those two logos do not even match, one is round and one is squared.

Evidence #17:

Token challenge Incorrect logo as per etherscan (https://etherscan.io/token/0xE5Dada80Aa6477e85d09747f2842f7993D0Df71C), coingecko (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/dock#markets) and uniswap app.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve